Predicting Response of Spontaneously Firing Afferents to Prosthetic Pulsatile Stimulation

Steinhardt, Cynthia R.; Fridman, Gene Y.

doi:10.1109/embc44109.2020.9175282

Cited by 6 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extracellular electric fields are typically assumed to affect axons at significantly lower amplitudes than smaller cells ( Smith and Goldberg, 1986 ; Rattay, 1999 ; Steinhardt and Fridman, 2020 ). Therefore, we first determined whether GVS produces all firing effects solely through interactions with the axon.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) GVS can induce graded amounts of excitation or inhibition through membrane potential changes that can match the natural system firing rates rather than relying on the more artificial activation of the axons with pulsatile stimulation. Meanwhile, pulsatile stimulation will have limitations on maximum firing rates that are dependent on pulse amplitude ( Steinhardt and Fridman, 2020 ). (3) GVS can capture natural stochastic firing patterns that could be important to the system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct current effects on afferent and hair cell to elicit natural firing patterns

Steinhardt

Fridman

2021

iScience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In contrast to the conventional pulsatile neuromodulation that excites neurons, galvanic or direct current stimulation can excite, inhibit, or sensitize neurons. The vestibular system presents an excellent system for studying galvanic neural interface due to the spontaneously firing afferent activity that needs to be either suppressed or excited to convey head motion sensation. We determine the cellular mechanisms underlying the beneficial properties of galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) by creating a computational model of the vestibular end organ that elicits all experimentally observed response characteristics to GVS simultaneously. When GVS was modeled to affect the axon alone, the complete experimental data could not be replicated. We found that if GVS affects hair cell vesicle release and axonal excitability simultaneously, our modeling results matched all experimental observations. We conclude that contrary to the conventional belief that GVS affects only axons, the hair cells are likely also affected by this stimulation paradigm.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct current effects on afferent and hair cell to elicit natural firing patterns

Steinhardt

Fridman

2021

iScience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1B). These rates were chosen because they fall within the physiological range of vestibular afferent firing 22 . Fixed-rate pulse blocks were delivered at a fixed pulse amplitude in order from lowest to highest pulse rate.…”

Section: Experimental Stimulation Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is established, however, is that pulses produce complex effects at the axon [19][20][21] (e.g., facilitation and blocking of future pulses), and spontaneous activity significantly impacts the induced firing rate in response to pulses. 22 In this study, we perform a systematic investigation of the relationship between pulse rate (pr), pulse amplitude (I), and spontaneous rate (S) in a biophysical model of a vestibular afferent, where baseline spontaneous firing has been shown to impact pulsatile stimulation. 22 We use a computational model to determine the physiological underpinnings these non-linear effects on firing rate and describe them with equations related to measurable and controllable quantities: fr = φ(pr, I, S).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 In this study, we perform a systematic investigation of the relationship between pulse rate (pr), pulse amplitude (I), and spontaneous rate (S) in a biophysical model of a vestibular afferent, where baseline spontaneous firing has been shown to impact pulsatile stimulation. 22 We use a computational model to determine the physiological underpinnings these non-linear effects on firing rate and describe them with equations related to measurable and controllable quantities: fr = φ(pr, I, S). We further validate this framework with experimental observations of vestibular afferents obtained in non-human primates in response to vestibular canal stimulation with pulse trains of different amplitudes and rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pulsatile electrical stimulation creates predictable, correctable disruptions in neural firing

Steinhardt¹,

Mitchell

Cullen

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrical stimulation of neural responses is used both scientifically in brain mapping studies and in many clinical applications such as cochlear, vestibular, and retinal implants. Due to safety considerations, stimulation of the nervous system is restricted to short biphasic pulses. Despite decades of research and development, neural implants are far from optimal in their ability to restore function and lead to varying improvements in patients. In this study, we provide an explanation for how pulsatile stimulation affects individual neurons and therefore leads to variability in restoration of neural responses. The explanation is grounded in the physiological response of channels in the axon and represented with mathematical rules that predict firing rate as a function of pulse rate, pulse amplitude, and spontaneous activity. We validate these rules by showing that they predict recorded vestibular afferent responses in macaques and discuss their implications for designing clinical stimulation paradigms and electrical stimulation-based experiments.

show abstract

Galvanic vs. pulsatile effects on decision-making networks: reshaping the neural activation landscape

Adkisson,

Steinhardt,

Fridman

2024

J. Neural Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Primarily due to safety concerns, biphasic pulsatile stimulation is the present standard for electrical excitation of neural tissue with a diverse set of applications. While pulses have been shown to be effective to achieve functional outcomes, they have well-known deficits. Due to recent technical advances, galvanic stimulation, delivery of current for extended periods of time (>1s), has re-emerged as an alternative to pulsatile stimulation. Approach. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making cortical network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and galvanic stimulation in the context of a perceptual decision-making task. Main results. Based on previous work, we hypothesized that galvanic stimulation would produce more spatiotemporally distributed, network-sensitive neural responses, while pulsatile stimulation would produce highly synchronized activation of a limited group of neurons. Our results in-silico support these hypotheses for low-amplitude galvanic stimulation but deviate when galvanic amplitudes are large enough to directly activate or block nearby neurons. Significance. We conclude that with careful parametrization, galvanic stimulation could overcome some limitations of pulsatile stimulation to deliver more naturalistic firing patterns in the group of targeted neurons.

show abstract

Predicting Response of Spontaneously Firing Afferents to Prosthetic Pulsatile Stimulation

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Direct current effects on afferent and hair cell to elicit natural firing patterns

Direct current effects on afferent and hair cell to elicit natural firing patterns

Pulsatile electrical stimulation creates predictable, correctable disruptions in neural firing

Galvanic vs. pulsatile effects on decision-making networks: reshaping the neural activation landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About