Stimulus parameters affecting tissue injury during microstimulation in the cochlear nucleus of the cat
Abstract
We investigated the effects of continuous microstimulation in the cats' posteroventral cochlear nucleus, using chronically implanted activated iridium microelectrodes. We examined 51 electrode sites (39 pulsed sites, and 12 unpulsed sites). Seven hours of continuous stimulation at 500 Hz often produced tissue injury near the tips of the pulsed microelectrodes. The damage took the form of a region of vacuolated tissue extending 200 microns or more from the site of the electrode tip. Electron microscope studies showed the vacuoles to be severely edematous segments of myelinated axons. The statistical correlation between the amount of damaged tissue and the charge per phase was large and highly significant (P < 0.0001). When the electrodes were pulsed for 7 h at 500 Hz with charge-balanced biphasic pulse pairs, the threshold for the damage was approximately 3 nC/phase. The damage threshold was not appreciably lower than the stimulation protocol was extended to 35 h (7 h/day for 5 days). In contrast, the threshold for exciting neurons near the microelectrode is approximately 1 nC/phase, as determined by the evoked response recorded in the inferior colliculus. There was little correlation between the severity of the tissue damage and the geometric charge density at the surface of the electrodes, between the damage and amplitude of the cathodic phase of the voltage transient induced across the stimulating electrodes by the stimulus current pulses, or between the damage and the stimulus pulse duration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The work of Shannon, McCreery et al., and Cogan et al. established guidelines for stimulation levels regarded as safe for the stimulated tissues and the materials of the stimulating electrodes.
“The work of Shannon (21), McCreery et al. (47, 48), and Cogan et al. (20, 49) established some guidelines for stimulation levels that are regarded as safe both for the stimulated tissues and the materials of the stimulating electrodes.”
From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 80
- Authors
- McCreery, D. B., Yuen, T. G. H., Agnew, W. F., & Bullara, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Huntington Medical Research Institutes (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCreery, D.B.
- ORCID
- McCreery, D.B.
- Venue
- Hearing Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-06
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 105-115
- ISSN
- 0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050558585
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (n01dc002400-000)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD NO1-DC-2400)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- cochlear nucleus, microstimulation, tissue damage, biphasic pulses, evoked potentials, inferior colliculus, stimulation threshold, pulse duration, electrode geometry
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cats, Cochlear Implants, Deafness, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Electrophysiology, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Humans, Microelectrodes, Microscopy, Electron, Cochlear Nucleus
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