The short version
- What happened: in 2024, Pulsetto's website published a "study" showing its neck device reduced stress. It was a reworded copy of a 2021 University of Kent study of an ear-clip device, with the diagram changed to show the neck and a line saying Pulsetto funded the work.
- Who says so: one of the original study's authors, who told a health blogger that Pulsetto "was not involved and did not fund that research." In December 2025, Pulsetto's founder and CEO acknowledged to Lithuania's business press that the company had published a plagiarized study.
- Pulsetto's side: it says it bought the text from an outside writer, removed it once it found out, ended that relationship and has since added checks.
- What it means for you: the copied study said nothing about whether Pulsetto works. It does tell you to read the company's numbers carefully.
- Is it still there? No. The page was online from April to August 2024.
The study behind the badge
It's late, you've seen the ad twice, and you click through to the science page. There's a study. It has an abstract, a method, a results section and a diagram of the very device you're thinking of buying. You don't read it all. Almost nobody does. Its existence is the reassurance.
That's why what happened with Pulsetto matters even if you never buy one. It shows how much of a gadget's credibility can rest on a page most of us never check.
What happened, step by step
2021: the real study. Researchers at the University of Kent's School of Computing presented a conference paper called "Tragus Based Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Stress Reduction." They tested a small electrical stimulator clipped to the tragus, the little flap in front of your ear canal, on five people, and measured changes in heart rate variability. It was a small, early feasibility study, the kind researchers do before bigger trials. Pulsetto wasn't part of it.
April 2024: the copy. A page appeared on Pulsetto's blog titled "Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Stress Reduction." When the Internet Archive captured it on April 27, 2024, it sat under a "50% off" Stress Awareness Month sale banner. The text closely tracked the Kent paper, sentence by sentence, with the wording shuffled. The original's first line reads, "Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation is fast becoming a popular alternative treatment method for various health disorders." Pulsetto's version reads, "Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation is quickly gaining popularity as an alternate treatment for a variety of health conditions." Three changes mattered:
- The location moved. The ear became the neck. The copy described electrodes "attached to both sides of the neck," which is how Pulsetto is worn.
- The diagram changed. The original figure showed the ear-clip setup. Pulsetto's showed a neck device.
- A funding credit appeared. The copy ended with "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Pulsetto: Research to Application Pulsetto Proof of Concept gave funding for the project."
August 2024: gone. Lithuania's public broadcaster LRT, citing the Internet Archive, reports that the page stayed up until August 17, 2024.
2025: the blogger. Health blogger Michael Kummer noticed the diagram, compared the page with the Kent paper and published side-by-side examples. His team contacted the original authors. Co-author Professor Ian McLoughlin replied that Pulsetto "was not involved and did not fund that research," that its device wasn't used, and that "the figure is doctored." Kummer says his emails to Pulsetto's co-founder went unanswered.
December 2025: the admission. LRT, citing the Lithuanian business paper Verslo žinios, reported that Pulsetto's founder and CEO, Povilas Sabaliauskas, acknowledged that a plagiarized study, bought from a third party, had been published on the company's site. "We actually paid money for plagiarism," he said (our translation), explaining that a hired writer had copied another publication.
Pulsetto's side
To be fair to Pulsetto, here is its account, as reported by LRT:
- The text came from an outside author and was used for public communication, not for developing the product.
- When the company found out, it removed the text and ended the relationship with the author.
- Pulsetto "did not commission, plan or tolerate" plagiarized content, the matter was fully resolved about a year before the story ran, and new checks are in place.
Sabaliauskas also said he didn't see it as deceiving people, describing it as a mistake made while moving fast and then fixed. He also said the blogger had been hired by competitors.
On that last point, Kummer's site does earn affiliate commissions, including on other devices, and he says so. It's worth knowing. But the key evidence doesn't depend on him: the original paper is public, the archived page is public, and a co-author confirmed in writing that Pulsetto wasn't involved.
Why it matters more than a copy-paste error
The evidence was for a different device. An ear clip stimulating the tragus is not a neckband on both sides of your neck. Different nerve branch, different hardware, different settings. Moving the study to the neck changed what it appeared to prove.
The original was tiny anyway. Five people, measured before and after stimulation, with no fake-device comparison. Even as an honest Pulsetto study, it would have been a starting point, not proof.
The funding line told readers something untrue. Rewording someone else's paper is plagiarism. Adding a line saying Pulsetto funded the research made it look like the company stood behind evidence it had nothing to do with. That's the detail most likely to mislead someone deciding whether to buy.
Verslo žinios also reported that Pulsetto's marketing called the device "twice as effective as meditation, yoga or breathing exercises," though none of the studies it promoted looked at those. We didn't find that claim on Pulsetto's site in October 2026.
Where Pulsetto stands now
Pulsetto has newer evidence, and it's real research rather than a copy. It's still thin:
- Its main 2025 study tested 40 healthy adults for four weeks with no fake-device comparison. As of October 2026 it's available only as a one-page conference abstract, and its first author works for Pulsetto. The "56%" headline on Pulsetto's homepage is a drop in depression scores, not stress.
- A small 2026 lab study from a US medical school gave nine young adults one session with a Pulsetto device and found blood pressure dipped. One session, no sham.
None of this shows Pulsetto doesn't work. Plenty of owners say it helps them, and expectation alone can do a lot. What the record shows is a company whose marketing has run ahead of its evidence. Our full Pulsetto review covers the device, the current research, the app subscription and the return fine print.
It's not just Pulsetto
Copying a study is unusual. Stretching one is not. While reviewing the devices in this directory, we found smaller versions of the same habit:
- Sensate advertises a 48% drop in stress, and we couldn't find a study behind that number. Our Sensate review
- Xen by Neuvana footnotes its "80%" figure to a reference that isn't in its own reference list. Our Xen review
- amofit S quotes the same trial as a 275% improvement on one page and 187% on another, and neither figure appears in the published paper. Our amofit S review
- ZenoWell supports its sleep claims with reviews of studies on other companies' devices. Our ZenoWell review
- Hoolest says there were "no side effects in 1,300+ research participants," citing a review of other devices that found skin irritation in 18% of people. Our Hoolest review
None of these is plagiarism. They're the everyday version of the same move: borrowing credibility from research that doesn't quite say what the ad says.
How to check a gadget's study in ten minutes
- Look for the device's name in the methods. If the study never names the product you're buying, it isn't evidence for that product.
- Check where it was published. A journal you can find on PubMed is one thing. A company blog post or a one-page conference abstract is much weaker.
- Count the people and the days. Five people for one session is a pilot. Dozens of people over several weeks is a study.
- Look for a fake-device group. Without a sham comparison, you can't separate the device from expectation and a calming new routine.
- See who paid and who wrote it. Check the funding note and the authors' employers. Company money doesn't make research wrong, but it should make you read closely.
- Match the headline to the paper. If the ad says "stress" and the paper says "depression," or "56%" turns out to be a single questionnaire score, that's a stretch.
- Search the title in quotes. Paste the study title into a search engine. Copies and originals have a way of turning up side by side.
- Check the archive. If a study page has disappeared, the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine may still have it.
If that's more homework than you want at 11pm, that's fair. It's why we do it in our reviews. For more on reading research, see the Science.
Should you still buy one?
Maybe. The copied study tells you about Pulsetto's marketing, not about how your nervous system will respond to a neckband. If you're curious, treat it like any device in the Zappers: use the 30-day return window, keep the box, set a calendar reminder, and decide on how you feel, not on the badge. And keep doing the free things that have better evidence than any gadget here, like slow breathing. The Analogs has the details.
FAQ
Is Pulsetto legit?
Pulsetto is a real company selling a real device, with a published 30-day refund policy and plenty of satisfied owners. It also published a plagiarized study in 2024, which its CEO acknowledged, and its current research is small and company-funded. Legit, but read its claims carefully.
Is Pulsetto a scam?
We wouldn't use that word. A scam takes your money and gives you nothing. Pulsetto ships a working product and has a published return policy, though some owners report trouble getting refunds. What it did was publish someone else's research as its own, which is a serious problem with its marketing, not proof the device doesn't work.
Did Pulsetto fake a study?
It published a reworded copy of a 2021 University of Kent study, changed the diagram from the ear to the neck, and added a line saying Pulsetto funded the work. A co-author says Pulsetto wasn't involved. Pulsetto's CEO acknowledged the plagiarism and says the text came from a hired writer.
Is the copied study still on Pulsetto's website?
No. According to the Internet Archive, it was online from April 27 to August 17, 2024.
Does Pulsetto actually work?
Some people find it helpful, but it hasn't been tested against a fake device in a published trial. Our Pulsetto review goes through the evidence.
The bottom line
Pulsetto didn't invent the habit of leaning on other people's research. It just got caught doing the most literal version of it. The lesson isn't "never buy Pulsetto." It's "don't let a badge or a diagram do your thinking." Find the paper, check the device's name, count the people. And if a study can't survive ten minutes of curiosity, it isn't the reason to buy anything.
Some links on this site may earn us a commission. That never changes what we report.
Sources
- LRT, "Klajoklio nervo stimuliatorių siūlanti „Pulsetto" pripažino nuplagijavusi klinikinį tyrimą" (December 15, 2025), citing Verslo žinios: lrt.lt
- Mouli S, Palaniappan R, Ollis J, McLoughlin I, Kanegaonkar R, Arora S. "Tragus Based Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Stress Reduction." BIOSIGNALS 2021: Kent Academic Repository
- Pulsetto, "Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Stress Reduction," archived April 27, 2024: Wayback Machine
- Michael Kummer, "Pulsetto Used Fake Research to Promote Its VNS Device" (includes Prof. McLoughlin's statement): michaelkummer.com