ArticleLasers in medical science2017
Effect of shorter pulse duration in cochlear neural activation with an 810-nm near-infrared laser.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging trends in the development of flexible optrode arrays for electrophysiology.APL bioengineering · 2023Review
- In-vitro quantitative measurement and analysis of the photosensitivity of cells to a weak pulse laser.Biomedical optics express · 2023Article
- Epidural combined optical and electrical stimulation induces high-specificity activation of target muscles in spinal cord injured rats.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- A Micron-Sized Laser Photothermal Effect Evaluation System and Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Influence of radiant exposure and repetition rate in infrared neural stimulation with near-infrared lasers.Lasers in medical science · 2019Article
- Inhibitory effect of 980-nm laser on neural activity of the rat's cochlear nucleus.Neurophotonics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical neural stimulation in the cochlea has been presented as an alternative technique to the electrical stimulation due to its potential in spatially selectivity enhancement. So far, few studies have selected the near-infrared (NIR) laser in cochlear neural stimulation and limited optical parameter space has been examined. This paper focused on investigating the optical parameter effect on NIR stimulation of auditory neurons, especially under shorter pulse durations. The spiral ganglion neurons in the cochlea of deafened guinea pigs were stimulated with a pulsed 810-nm NIR laser in vivo. The laser radiation was delivered by an optical fiber and irradiated towards the modiolus. Optically evoked auditory brainstem responses (OABRs) with various optical parameters were recorded and investigated. The OABRs could be elicited with the cochlear deafened animals by using the 810-nm laser in a wide pulse duration ranged from 20 to 1000 μs. Results showed that the OABR intensity increased along with the increasing laser radiant exposure of limited range at each specific pulse duration. In addition, for the pulse durations from 20 to 300 μs, the OABR intensity increased monotonically along with the pulse duration broadening. While for pulse durations above 300 μs, the OABR intensity basically kept stable with the increasing pulse duration. The 810-nm NIR laser could be an effective stimulus in evoking the cochlear neuron response. Our experimental data provided evidence to optimize the pulse duration range, and the results suggested that the pulse durations from 20 to 300 μs could be the optimized range in cochlear neural activation with the 810-nm-wavelength laser.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.