ArticleBrain stimulation
Neural mechanisms of the temporal response of cortical neurons to intracortical microstimulation.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomimetic stimulation patterns drive natural artificial touch percepts using intracortical microstimulation in humans.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Trial
- Mechanisms of transcranial magnetic brain stimulation.Physiological reviews · 2026Review
- Computational investigation of circuit mechanisms underlying short-latency responses to cortical stimulation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- logLIRA: a method for reliable suppression of electrical stimulation artifacts enabling short-latency neural response recovery.Journal of neural engineering · 2026Article
- The optimization of neuroprosthetic interfaces relying on biophysical and surrogate digital twins.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Integration of learned artificial sensation with vision during freely moving navigation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- A modular, high-bandwidth, bidirectional implantable device for neural interrogation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Neural mechanisms underlying intracortical microstimulation for sensory restoration.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Intensity-dependent tACS entrainment effects in a cortical microcircuit: a computational study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intracortical Microstimulation in Brain-Computer Interfaces: Evoking Perception and Plasticity.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- Deep Learning-Based Control of Electrically Evoked Activity in Human Visual Cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Robustness of Working Memory to Prefrontal Cortex Microstimulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Degradation-aware neural imputation: Advancing decoding stability in brain machine interfaces.APL bioengineering · 2025Article
- Cortical dynamics in hand/forelimb S1 and M1 evoked by brief photostimulation of the mouse's hand.eLife · 2025Article
- Tactile edges and motion via patterned microstimulation of the human somatosensory cortex.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Optimal interphase delay in biphasic current pulses facilitates neural circuit activation induced by microstimulation in the mouse visual cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Effects of low-frequency burst stimulation of the motor thalamus on cortical neural co-firing.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
backgroundIntracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is used to map neuronal circuitry in the brain and restore lost sensory function, including vision, hearing, and somatosensation. The temporal response of cortical neurons to single pulse ICMS is remarkably stereotyped and comprises short latency excitation followed by prolonged inhibition and, in some cases, rebound excitation. However, the neural origin of the different response components to ICMS are poorly understood, and the interactions between the three response components during trains of ICMS pulses remains unclear.
objectiveWe used computational modeling to determine the mechanisms contributing to the temporal response to ICMS in model cortical neurons.
methodsWe implemented a biophysically based computational model of a cortical column comprising neurons with realistic morphology and synapses and quantified the temporal response of cortical neurons to different ICMS protocols. We characterized the temporal responses to single pulse ICMS across stimulation intensities and inhibitory (GABA-B/GABA-A) synaptic strengths. To probe interactions between response components, we quantified the response to paired pulse ICMS at different inter-pulse intervals and the response to short trains at different stimulation frequencies. Finally, we evaluated the performance of biomimetic ICMS trains in evoking sustained neural responses.
resultsSingle pulse ICMS evoked short latency excitation followed by a period of inhibition, but model neurons did not exhibit post-inhibitory excitation. The strength of short latency excitation increased and the duration of inhibition increased with increased stimulation amplitude. Prolonged inhibition resulted from both after-hyperpolarization currents and GABA-B synaptic transmission. During the paired pulse protocol, the strength of short latency excitation evoked by a test pulse decreased marginally compared to those evoked by a single pulse for interpulse intervals (IPI) < 100 m s. Further, the duration of inhibition evoked by the test pulse was prolonged compared to single pulse for IPIs <50 m s and was not predicted by linear superposition of individual inhibitory responses. For IPIs>50 m s, the duration of inhibition evoked by the test pulse was comparable to those evoked by a single pulse. Short ICMS trains evoked repetitive excitatory responses against a background of inhibition. However, the strength of the repetitive excitatory response declined during ICMS at higher frequencies. Further, the duration of inhibition at the cessation of ICMS at higher frequencies was prolonged compared to the duration following a single pulse. Biomimetic pulse trains evoked comparable neural response between the onset and offset phases despite the presence of stimulation induced inhibition.
conclusionsThe cortical column model replicated the short latency excitation and long-lasting inhibitory components of the stereotyped neural response documented in experimental studies of ICMS. Both cellular and synaptic mechanisms influenced the response components generated by ICMS. The non-linear interactions between response components resulted in dynamic ICMS-evoked neural activity and may play an important role in mediating the ICMS-induced precepts.
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.