Cited by 3Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNeural dynamics and brain functionEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Local field potential phase modulates the evoked response to electrical stimulation in visual cortex

Open access
Allison-Walker, Tim, Hagan, Maureen A, Meikle, Sabrina J, Price, Nicholas S C, Wong, Yan T·2025·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective. Development of cortical visual prostheses requires optimization of evoked responses to electrical stimulation to reduce charge requirements and improve safety, efficiency, and efficacy. One promising approach is timing stimulation to the local field potential (LFP), where action potentials have been found to occur preferentially at specific phases. To assess the relationship between electrical stimulation and the phase of the LFP, we recorded action potentials from primary (V1) and secondary (V2) visual cortex in marmosets while delivering single-pulse electrical microstimulation at different phases of the LFP. Approach. A 64-channel 4 shank probe was inserted into V1 and V2. Microstimulation (single biphasic pulse, 10 µ A and 200 µ s per phase) was applied to selected channels in V1, and action potentials recorded simultaneously in V1 and V2. Microstimulation pulses were jittered in time to randomize the phase of the LFP at the time of stimulation. Results. We found frequency-specific phase modulation in a subset of units, where microstimulation in V1 evokes a higher firing rate in both V1 and V2 when delivered at specific phases of the LFP. We characterize phase modulation in terms of the preferred phase and frequency of V1 stimulation for responses in both V1 and V2, and effect size as a function of phase estimation accuracy. Significance. Phase modulation could reduce charge requirements for neural activation, reducing the volume of activated tissue and improving the safety, efficacy, and specificity of cortical visual prostheses. Phase modulation could allow cortical visual prostheses to stimulate using more simultaneous electrodes, with improved neural specificity, and, potentially, targeting downstream cortical activation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2552/ada828

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 3

Authors
Allison-Walker, T., Hagan, M. A., Meikle, S. J., Price, N. S. C., & Wong, Y. T.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2025-01-22
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
016009
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W4406206591
Cited by
3
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP210102107)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1185442)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
phase modulation, electrical microstimulation, cortical visual prosthesis, primary visual cortex, secondary visual cortex, marmoset
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Callithrix, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Male, Visual Cortex, 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