Cited by 57Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringRetinal Development and DisordersAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design

Optimization of pillar electrodes in subretinal prosthesis for enhanced proximity to target neurons

Open access
Flores, Thomas, Lei, Xin, Huang, Tiffany, Lorach, Henri, Dalal, Roopa, Galambos, Ludwig, Kamins, Theodore, Mathieson, Keith +1 more·2018·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: High-resolution prosthetic vision requires dense stimulating arrays with small electrodes. However, such miniaturization reduces electrode capacitance and penetration of electric field into tissue. We evaluate potential solutions to these problems with subretinal implants based on utilization of pillar electrodes. APPROACH: To study integration of three-dimensional (3D) implants with retinal tissue, we fabricated arrays with varying pillar diameter, pitch, and height, and implanted beneath the degenerate retina in rats (Royal College of Surgeons, RCS). Tissue integration was evaluated six weeks post-op using histology and whole-mount confocal fluorescence imaging. The electric field generated by various electrode configurations was calculated in COMSOL, and stimulation thresholds assessed using a model of network-mediated retinal response. MAIN RESULTS: Retinal tissue migrated into the space between pillars with no visible gliosis in 90% of implanted arrays. Pillars with 10 μm height reached the middle of the inner nuclear layer (INL), while 22 μm pillars reached the upper portion of the INL. Electroplated pillars with dome-shaped caps increase the active electrode surface area. Selective deposition of sputtered iridium oxide onto the cap ensures localization of the current injection to the pillar top, obviating the need to insulate the pillar sidewall. According to computational model, pillars having a cathodic return electrode above the INL and active anodic ring electrode at the surface of the implant would enable six times lower stimulation threshold, compared to planar arrays with circumferential return, but suffer from greater cross-talk between the neighboring pixels. SIGNIFICANCE: 3D electrodes in subretinal prostheses help reduce electrode-tissue separation and decrease stimulation thresholds to enable smaller pixels, and thereby improve visual acuity of prosthetic vision.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2552/aaac39

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • The presence of debris due to photoreceptor degeneration might increase the distance from the electrodes to BCs and reduce resolution and stimulation efficiency.

    “However, the presence of debris due to photoreceptor degeneration might increase the distance from the electrodes to BCs and reduce resolution and stimulation efficiency [50].”

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: 1

  1. [17]Lee KW, Watanabe Y, Kigure C, Fukushima T, Koyanagi M and Tanaka T 2012 Pillar-shaped stimulus electrode array for high-efficiency stimulation of fully implantable epiretinal prosthesis Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering 22 105015

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flores, T., Lei, X., Huang, T., Lorach, H., Dalal, R., Galambos, L., Kamins, T., Mathieson, K., & Palanker, D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Flores, Thomas
  • Lei, Xin
  • Huang, Tiffany
  • Lorach, Henri
  • Dalal, Roopa
  • Galambos, Ludwig
  • Kamins, Theodore
  • Mathieson, Keith
  • Palanker, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
036011
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2737971105
Cited by
57
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-EY-018608)
  • Stanford Neurosciences Institute
  • U.S. Department of Defense
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
Keywords
subretinal prosthesis, inner nuclear layer, stimulation threshold, electric field distribution, pixel crosstalk, electrode miniaturization
MeSH terms
Animals, Electrodes, Implanted, Gold, Neurons, Prosthesis Design, Silicon, Prosthesis Implantation, Rats, Visual Prosthesis

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