ArticlePloS one2020
Optimization of stimulation parameters for epi-retinal implant based on biosafety consideration.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A facile and comprehensive algorithm for electrical response identification in mouse retinal ganglion cells.PloS one · 2021Article
- Real-Time Optimization of Retinal Ganglion Cell Spatial Activity in Response to Epiretinal Stimulation.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimizing stimulation protocol is essential for clinical application of retinal prosthesis. Elongating stimulation pulse width (~25ms /phase) has been proposed as an effective method to improve spatial resolution of epi-retinal implants. However, it is unknown whether longer stimulus pulse width will increase the risk of damaging the retina. In addition, with the advent of next generation retinal prosthesis featuring high-density microelectrode array, it is tempting to optimizing a single set of parameters for all electrodes instead of optimizing parameters of each electrode, but this approach raised biosafety concern. We sought to study the effect of stimulus pulse width on the response of retinal ganglion cells to electrical stimulation, and evaluate if the single parameter set approach was valid based on biosafety measures.
methodsWe stimulated mouse retina using biphasic pulse waveform generated by chosen electrodes (single or a 3x3 assembly) from multiple microelectrode arrays, recorded their action potentials and performed spike sorting. We tested various stimulus intensity with two fixed pulse width: a short one for 1 millisecond per phase, and a long one for 25 milliseconds per phase. All these assays were performed on two mouse models: the wildtype C57BL/6J mice and the photoreceptor degenerated rd10 mice. The action-potential-frequency vs stimulus amplitude profiles were plotted, and three parameters were extracted: the threshold (the lowest stimulus amplitude activating RGC units), safety-limit (stimulus amplitude that attenuated the firing rate to half of the maximum response), and the stimulation amplitude range (the difference between threshold and safety limit parameters).
resultsIn single-electrode stimulation experiment, we found that on average 85% of the recorded units showed attenuated response to extreme stimulation; among those units, an average of 51% stopped responding during stimulation ramping and failed to recover after one-hour post-stimulation, indicating extreme stimulation can damage RGC units. Twenty-five-millisecond pulse stimulation significantly reduced safety-limit and stimulation-amplitude-range parameters of recorded RGC units compared to 1ms pulse stimulation. During stimulus amplitude ramping, the maximum proportion of responsive healthy RGC units was 51% on average in 25ms pulse condition, and 76% on average in 1ms pulse condition, indicating long pulse may inflict more strain on RGCs, and a significant amount of inappropriately stimulated RGCs always exist. The contrast of these proportions could be explained by the tight correlation between the threshold and safety-limit parameter in 25ms pulse condition. These results were corroborated by those from 3x3 array stimulation experiments.
conclusionBase on a biosafety measure (RGCs' evoked firing rate in response to electrical stimulation), we proposed that longer stimulation pulse width could lead to reduced retinal response and thus highlighted the importance of carefully setting the stimulation amplitude in this case. Our results also suggested that optimizing a single set of parameters for all electrodes without individual tweaking always generated a significant amount of inappropriately stimulated RGCs, especially in the long pulse stimulation condition.
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.