Comparison of activation and selectivity in dorsal and ventral epidural spinal cord stimulation in rats: a computational modeling study.

Dinglong Yan, Zheshan Guo, Haipeng Liu, Xiao Wang, Fengyan Liang, Jing Jie, Ming Yin

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Dinglong YanState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China.

Zheshan GuoState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China. guozheshan@hainanu.edu.cn.

Haipeng LiuCentre for Intelligent Healthcare, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.

Xiao WangState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China.

Fengyan LiangState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China.

Jing JieState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China.

Ming YinState Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Biomedical Engineering of Hainan Province, Sanya Research Institute of Hainan Univiersity, School of Biomedical Engineering, Hainan University, Sanya, 572024, P R China.

Funding

the Innovational Fund for Scientific and Technological Personnel of Hainan Province Grant No. KJRC 2023L01the National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 32160204, 62466015, and 32360196the South China Sea Rising Star Project of Hainan Province Grant No. 202309001the STI 2030-Major Projects Grant No. 2022ZD0208600, 2022ZD0208602

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) enhances motor function recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) by modulating distinct spinal pathways through dorsal epidural electrical stimulation (dEES) and ventral epidural electrical stimulation (vEES). The characteristics between dEES and vEES remain insufficiently explored. To address this, a rat spinal computational model was developed, integrating finite element analysis and nerve fiber modeling to simulate the effects of dEES and vEES. The potential distribution generated by EES was coupled with Aα-sensory and α-motor fibers to compute thresholds, saturation amplitudes, and selectivity indices across stimulation modes. The analysis showed that dEES exhibited lower thresholds and saturation amplitudes, while vEES achieved higher muscle selectivity. Multipolar stimulation dispersed currents across multiple spinal segments, reducing target muscle selectivity and increasing thresholds and saturation amplitudes compared to monopolar stimulation. Although stimulation frequency had little effect on selectivity in both dEES and vEES, higher frequencies in dEES reduced the stimulation intensity required to achieve maximum selectivity. These findings reveal key differences in activation characteristics between dEES and vEES and highlight their potential roles in neuromodulation. Most importantly, we provided a fiber-level explanation for these differences in rats and supplemented our findings with a comparative analysis of previous studies. These insights lay a foundation for future rodent experiments aimed at optimizing epidural stimulation strategies.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationSpinal CordSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord StimulationAnimalsElectric StimulationEpidural SpaceFinite Element AnalysisRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyAxon modelEpidural electrical stimulationFinite element modelSelectivitySpinal cord injurySpinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID41083692

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-19555-w

PMCPMC12518515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.