ArticlePloS one2022
A simple model considering spiking probability during extracellular axon stimulation.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging current steering and the biophysics of spike generation for cellular-resolution electrical stimulation of neurons.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Understanding responses to multi-electrode epiretinal stimulation using a biophysical model.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Inference of Electrical Stimulation Sensitivity from Recorded Activity of Primate Retinal Ganglion Cells.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Organ- and function-specific anatomical organization of vagal fibers supports fascicular vagus nerve stimulation.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The spiking probability of an electrically stimulated axon as a function of stimulus amplitude increases in a sigmoidal dependency from 0 to 1. However, most computer simulation studies for neuroprosthetic applications calculate thresholds for neural targets with a deterministic model and by reducing the sigmoid curve to a step function, they miss an important information about the control signal, namely how the spiking efficiency increases with stimulus intensity. Here, this spiking efficiency is taken into account in a compartment model of the Hodgkin Huxley type where a noise current is added in every compartment with an active membrane. A key parameter of the model is a common factor knoise which defines the ion current fluctuations across the cell membrane for every compartment by its maximum sodium ion conductance. In the standard model Gaussian signals are changed every 2.5 μs as a compromise of accuracy and computational costs. Additionally, a formula for other noise transmission times is presented and numerically tested. Spiking probability as a function of stimulus intensity can be approximated by the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution with RS = σ/μ. Relative spread RS, introduced by Verveen, is a measure for the spread (normalized by the threshold intensity μ), that decreases inversely with axon diameter. Dynamic range, a related measure used in neuroprosthetic studies, defines the intensity range between 10% and 90% spiking probability. We show that (i) the dynamic range normalized by threshold is 2.56 times RS, (ii) RS increases with electrode-axon distance and (iii) we present knoise values for myelinated and unmyelinated axon models in agreement with recoded RS data. The presented method is applicable for other membrane models and can be extended to whole neurons that are described by multi-compartment models.
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.