TY - GEN
T1 - Difference in Network Effects of Pulsatile and Galvanic Stimulation
AU - Adkisson, Paul
AU - Fridman, Gene Y.
AU - Steinhardt, Cynthia R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 IEEE.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Biphasic pulsatile stimulation is the present standard for neural prosthetic use, and it is used to understand connectivity and functionality of the brain in brain mapping studies. While pulses have been shown to drive behavioral changes, such as biasing decision making, they have deficits. For example, cochlear implants restore hearing but lack the ability to restore pitch perception. Recent work shows that pulses produce artificial synchrony in networks of neurons and non-linear changes in firing rate with pulse amplitude. Studies also show galvanic stimulation, delivery of current for extended periods of time, produces more naturalistic behavioral responses than pulses. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and galvanic stimulation at the single neuron and network level while accurately modeling the effects of pulses on neurons for the first time. Results show pulses bias spike timing and make neurons more resistive to natural network inputs than galvanic stimulation at an equivalent current amplitude. Clinical Relevance- This establishes that pulsatile stimulation may disrupt natural spike timing and network-level interactions while certain parameterizations of galvanic stimulation avoid these effects and can drive network firing more naturally.
AB - Biphasic pulsatile stimulation is the present standard for neural prosthetic use, and it is used to understand connectivity and functionality of the brain in brain mapping studies. While pulses have been shown to drive behavioral changes, such as biasing decision making, they have deficits. For example, cochlear implants restore hearing but lack the ability to restore pitch perception. Recent work shows that pulses produce artificial synchrony in networks of neurons and non-linear changes in firing rate with pulse amplitude. Studies also show galvanic stimulation, delivery of current for extended periods of time, produces more naturalistic behavioral responses than pulses. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and galvanic stimulation at the single neuron and network level while accurately modeling the effects of pulses on neurons for the first time. Results show pulses bias spike timing and make neurons more resistive to natural network inputs than galvanic stimulation at an equivalent current amplitude. Clinical Relevance- This establishes that pulsatile stimulation may disrupt natural spike timing and network-level interactions while certain parameterizations of galvanic stimulation avoid these effects and can drive network firing more naturally.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138128645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138128645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871812
DO - 10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871812
M3 - Conference contribution
C2 - 36086346
AN - SCOPUS:85138128645
T3 - Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS
SP - 3093
EP - 3099
BT - 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC 2022
PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
T2 - 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC 2022
Y2 - 11 July 2022 through 15 July 2022
ER -