Cited by 195Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and ResearchIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects

Compound action potential of nerve recorded by suction electrode: a theoretical and experimental analysis

Open access
Stys, Peter K., Ransom, Bruce R., Waxman, Stephen G.·1991·Brain Research

Abstract

Suction electrodes are widely used for recording compound action potentials (CAPs) from peripheral nerves or central tracts. Unfortunately, the recordings obtained with suction electrodes often vary over time, making quantitative measurement of CAP amplitude difficult. We developed an equivalent electrical model which predicts that the magnitude of a recorded potential will be linearly related to the resistance of the electrode with a nerve inserted. Mathematical procedures were developed that allow correction of virtually all variability inherent in this type of recording; this variability may arise from resistance drift, variable stimulus artifact, or potentials generated as a result of the current of injury. The validity of the theoretical analysis was confirmed experimentally using rat optic nerves. The magnitude of the CAP and electrode resistance varied spontaneously by as much as 100% over time, due to changes in electrode resistance and size of the stimulus artifact. Because the CAP was linearly related to resistance, it was therefore best quantified by the slope computed from this relationship. The stimulus artifact, unlike the CAP itself, was shown to be independent of recording electrode resistance and therefore only resulted in a variable offset to the area vs resistance linear relationship; the slope of this relationship was unaffected. In the absence of stimulation, a steady negative DC potential was recorded from the optic nerve, which was greatest immediately after dissection, and was also a linear function of electrode resistance. In contrast to CAP amplitude, the latencies of the component peaks within the CAP were not significantly altered by changes in electrode resistance. The experimental results confirmed the validity of the electrical model and demonstrated that suction electrodes can be a very reliable and quantitative recording method if the signals are properly corrected.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0006-8993(91)91154-s

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ransom, B.R. and Carlini, W.G, Electrophysiological proper- ties of astrocytes. In S. Fedoroff and A. Vernadakis (Eds.), Astrocytes, Academic Press, London, 1986, pp. 1-49.
  2. Stys, P.K., A general-purpose program for acquisition, storage and digital processing of transient signals, J. Neurosci. Methods. in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stys, P. K., Ransom, B. R., & Waxman, S. G.
Affiliations
United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Stys, Peter K.
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-04
Volume
546
Issue
1
Pages
18-32
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001522791
Cited by
195
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Keywords
compound action potential, suction electrodes, neural recording, electrode resistance, equivalent circuit model, stimulus artifact, optic nerve, injury current, action potential amplitude, action potential latency
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Evoked Potentials, Membrane Potentials, Models, Biological, Neurons, Optic Nerve, Regression Analysis, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review