ArticleArtificial organs2022
Accurate simulation of cuff electrode stimulation predicting in-vivo strength-duration thresholds.
Article in Artificial organs, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental Analysis and Modeling Study of Impedance Changes in Decellularized and Recellularized Peripheral Nerves.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Computational modeling of autonomic nerve stimulation: Vagus et al.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Validated computational models predict vagus nerve stimulation thresholds in preclinical animals and humans.Journal of neural engineering · 2023Article
- In vivo peripheral nerve activation using sinusoidal low-frequency alternating currents.Artificial organs · 2022Article
- Accurate simulation of cuff electrode stimulation predicting in-vivo strength-duration thresholds.Artificial organs · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn-silico experiments used to optimize and inform how peripheral nerve based electrode designs perform hold the promise of greatly reducing the guesswork with new designs as well as the number of animals used to identify and prove promising designs. Given adequate realism, in-silico experiments offer the promise of identifying putative mechanisms that further inform exploration of novel stimulation and recording techniques and their interactions with bioelectric phenomena. However, despite using validated nerve fiber models, when applied to the more complex case of an implanted extracellular electrode, the in-silico experiments often do not compare quantitatively with the results of experiments conducted in in-vivo experiments. This suggests that the accuracy/realism of the environment and the lamination of the nerve bundle plays an important role in this discrepancy. This paper describes the sensitivity of in-silico models to the electrical parameter estimates and volume conductor type used.
methodsIn-vivo work was performed on rat vagus nerves (N = 2) to characterize the strength-duration curve for various peaks identified in a compound nerve action potential (CAP) measured via a needle electrode. The vagus nerve has several distinct populations of nerve fiber calibers and types. Recruitment of a fiber caliber/type generates distinct peaks that can be identified, and whose conduction delay correlates to a conduction velocity. Peaks were identified by their recruitment thresholds and associated to their conduction velocities by the conduction delays of their peaks. An in-silico analog of the in-vivo experiment was constructed and experiments were run at the two extreme volume conductor cases: (1) The nerve in-saline, and (2) the nerve in-air. The specifically targeted electrical parameters were extraneural environment (in-air versus saline submersion), the resistivity (ρ) of the epineurium and perineurium, and the relative permittivity (ε
resultsThe finite element method simulations spanned two macro environments: in-saline and in-air. For these environments, the resistivities for low and high frequencies as well as two different permittivity cases were used. Between these 8 cases unique cases it was found that the most accurate combination of those variables was the in-air environment for low-frequency resistivity (ρ
conclusionsThe results of this investigation suggest that increasing realism in simulations begets more accurate predictions. Of particular importance are (ρ) and extraneural environment, with reactive electrical parameters becoming important for input waveforms with energy in higher frequencies.
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.