Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38492885›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Neural mechanisms of the temporal response of cortical neurons to intracortical microstimulation.

Karthik Kumaravelu, Warren M Grill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Integration of learned artificial sensation with vision during freely moving navigation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Robustness of Working Memory to Prefrontal Cortex Microstimulation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karthik KumaraveluDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Warren M GrillDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: warren.grill@duke.edu.

Funding

Engineering the Neuronal Response to Electrical MicrostimulationU01NS126052 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI ORAZEM, MARK E., OTTO, KEVIN J. · 2022 to 2025
$4.3M
Biomimetic Somatosensory Feedback through IntracorticalmicrostimulationR01NS095251 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI BENSMAIA, SLIMAN, GRILL, WARREN M. · 2016 to 2020
$3.7M
NeuroSimNIBS: Integrated electric field and neuronal response modeling for transcranial electric and magnetic stimulationR01MH128422 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Warren M. Grill, Angel V Peterchev · 2022 to 2026
$2.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH128422NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS095251NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS126052
6 · The paper itself

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

Cerebral CortexElectric StimulationModels, NeurologicalNeuronsAnimalsComputer SimulationCortical columnIntracortical microstimulationLong-lasting inhibitionNeural modelRebound excitationShort latency excitation

Identifiers

PMID38492885
PMCPMC11090107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.