Cited by 109Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsPain Management and Treatment

Focal activation of the feline retina via a suprachoroidal electrode array

Open access
Wong, Y.T., Chen, S.C., Seo, J.M., Morley, J.W., Lovell, N.H., Suaning, G.J.·2009·Vision Research

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the first investigations into the use of bipolar electrical stimulation of the retina with a suprachoroidal vision prosthesis, and the effects of different electrode configurations on localization of responses on the primary visual cortex. Cats were implanted with electrodes in the suprachoroidal space, and electrically evoked potentials were recorded on the visual cortex. Responses were elicited to bipolar and monopolar stimuli, with each stimulating electrode coupled with either six-return electrodes, two-return electrodes, or a single-return electrode. The average charge threshold to elicit a response with bipolar stimulation and six-return electrodes was 76.47+/-8.76 nC. Bipolar stimulation using six-return electrodes evoked responses half the magnitude of those elicited with a single or two-return electrodes. Monopolar stimulation evoked a greater magnitude, and area of cortical activation than bipolar stimulation. This study showed that suprachoroidal, bipolar stimulation can elicit localized activity in the primary visual cortex, with the extent of localization and magnitude of response dependent on the electrode configuration.

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/j.visres.2009.02.018

Cites

48 of 48 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, Y. T., Chen, S. C., Seo, J. M., Morley, J. W., Lovell, N. H., & Suaning, G. J.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Suaning, G.J.
Venue
Vision Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
49
Issue
8
Pages
825-833
ISSN
0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991784092
Cited by
109
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vision Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Retina Australia
  • Australian Government
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, monopolar stimulation, primary visual cortex, electrically evoked potentials, electrode configuration, cats
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Microelectrodes, Retina, Visual Cortex, Prostheses and Implants, Prosthesis Implantation

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