Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23044730›Full record

ReviewAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2012

Acute damage threshold for infrared neural stimulation of the cochlea: functional and histological evaluation.

Vinay Goyal, Suhrud Rajguru, Agnella I Matic, Stuart R Stock, Claus-Peter Richter

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Study on Recovery Strategy of Hearing Loss & SGN Regeneration Under Physical Regulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Infrared neural stimulation at different wavelengths and pulse shapes.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Optical stimulation of neural tissue.Healthcare technology letters · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vinay GoyalDepartment of Otolaryngology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008, USA.
Suhrud Rajguru
Agnella I Matic
Stuart R Stock
Claus-Peter Richter
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Understanding the Benefits of Infrared Nerve Stimulators for Neural InterfacesR01DC011855 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI RICHTER, CLAUS-PETER · 2012 to 2016
$2.4M
NIDCD NIH HHS N01-DC-6-0006NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011855PHS HHS HHSN260-2006-00006-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a mini review of the current state of infrared neural stimulation (INS), and new experimental results concerning INS damage thresholds. INS promises to be an attractive alternative for neural interfaces. With this method, one can attain spatially selective neural stimulation that is not possible with electrical stimulation. INS is based on the delivery of short laser pulses that result in a transient temperature increase in the tissue and depolarize the neurons. At a high stimulation rate and/or high pulse energy, the method bears the risk of thermal damage to the tissue from the instantaneous temperature increase or from potential accumulation of thermal energy. With the present study, we determined the injury thresholds in guinea pig cochleae for acute INS using functional measurements (compound action potentials) and histological evaluation. The selected laser parameters for INS were the wavelength (λ = 1,869 nm), the pulse duration (100 μs), the pulse repetition rate (250 Hz), and the radiant energy (0-127 μJ/pulse). For up to 5 hr of continuous irradiation at 250 Hz and at radiant energies up to 25 μJ/pulse, we did not observe any functional or histological damage in the cochlea. Functional loss was observed for energies above 25 μJ/pulse and the probability of injury to the target tissue resulting in functional loss increased with increasing radiant energy. Corresponding cochlear histology from control animals and animals exposed to 98 or 127 μJ/pulse at 250 Hz pulse repetition rate did not show a loss of spiral ganglion cells, hair cells, or other soft tissue structures of the organ of Corti. Light microscopy did not reveal any structural changes in the soft tissue either. Additionally, microcomputed tomography was used to visualize the placement of the optical fiber within the cochlea.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationInfrared RaysAnimalsCochleaHumansNeurons

Identifiers

PMID23044730
PMCPMC7548122
OpenAlexW2040974806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.