ECT is bedeviled by lack of agreed objective seizure descriptors. A traditional descriptor is seizure length. However, the identification of seizure end-point remains problematic. For half a century, the seizure end-point was identified by visual observation of limb movement. Impediments to the visual method are many, and include that administered muscle relaxant may greatly suppress movements, and one limb may continue to move, unnoticed. With advances in technology, electromyography (EMG) and electroencephalography (EEG) suggested solutions. The EMG method included placing a cuff around the arm to prevent arterial dispersion of the depolarizing agent to one arm. In practice this was cumbersome, and The Royal College of Psychiatrists' Special Committee on ECT eventually described the technique as unreliable [1]. The EEG method is also beset by difficulties. Even experienced encephalographers with the benefit of multichannel EEGs are unable to locate the end-points in 10–20% of cases [2]. Further, “seizure morphology” varies with ECT technique. For example, the “seizure intensity” of low dose unilateral differs from high dose bilateral ECT [3], and EEG ictal features change over the course of treatment [4]. McCall [5] recently stated that the seizure morphology which predicts clinical outcome is yet to be characterized, and that “EEG seizures” are frequently less useful than the observation of clonic movements. In short, objective physiological measurements are yet to be universally accepted and effective in clinical practice, and visual observation continues to be the default option. Reports have described the use of accelerometers in monitoring limb movements [6,7]. More recently, publications have described the use of iPhone accelerometers to monitor the tremor of Parkinson's disease [8] and trunk sway [9] and even earthquake tremors. Is it possible an accelerometer attached in the midline (or each limb) could give a useful, objective description of induced seizures?