bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Steinhardt, C. R.

Publications and source records attributed to Steinhardt, C. R..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Galvanic vs. Pulsatile Effects on Decision-Making Networks: Reshaping the Neural Activation Landscape

I.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. 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. 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. 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.

neuroscience↗

The Rules of Pulsatile Neurostimulation

Electrical stimulation is a key tool in neuroscience, both in brain mapping studies and in many therapeutic applications such as cochlear, vestibular, and retinal neural implants. Due to safety considerations, stimulation is restricted to short biphasic pulses. Despite decades of research and development, neural implants lead to varying restoration of function in patients. In this study, we use computational modeling to provide an explanation for how pulsatile stimulation affects axonal channels and therefore leads to variability in restoration of neural responses. The phenomenological explanation is transformed into equations that predict induced firing rate as a function of pulse rate, pulse amplitude, and spontaneous firing rate. We show that these equations predict simulated responses to pulsatile stimulation with a variety of parameters as well as several features of experimentally recorded vestibular afferent responses to pulsatile stimulation. We then discuss the implications of these effects for improving clinical stimulation paradigms and electrical stimulation-based experiments.

neuroscience↗