Cited by 386Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchPain Management and Treatment

Tissue damage thresholds during therapeutic electrical stimulation

Open access
Cogan, Stuart F, Ludwig, Kip A, Welle, Cristin G, Takmakov, Pavel·2016·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective . Recent initiatives in bioelectronic modulation of the nervous system by the NIH (SPARC), DARPA (ElectRx, SUBNETS) and the GlaxoSmithKline Bioelectronic Medicines effort are ushering in a new era of therapeutic electrical stimulation. These novel therapies are prompting a re-evaluation of established electrical thresholds for stimulation-induced tissue damage. Approach . In this review, we explore what is known and unknown in published literature regarding tissue damage from electrical stimulation. Main results . For macroelectrodes, the potential for tissue damage is often assessed by comparing the intensity of stimulation, characterized by the charge density and charge per phase of a stimulus pulse, with a damage threshold identified through histological evidence from in vivo experiments as described by the Shannon equation. While the Shannon equation has proved useful in assessing the likely occurrence of tissue damage, the analysis is limited by the experimental parameters of the original studies. Tissue damage is influenced by factors not explicitly incorporated into the Shannon equation, including pulse frequency, duty cycle, current density, and electrode size. Microelectrodes in particular do not follow the charge per phase and charge density co-dependence reflected in the Shannon equation. The relevance of these factors to tissue damage is framed in the context of available reports from modeling and in vivo studies. Significance . It is apparent that emerging applications, especially with microelectrodes, will require clinical charge densities that exceed traditional damage thresholds. Experimental data show that stimulation at higher charge densities can be achieved without causing tissue damage, suggesting that safety parameters for microelectrodes might be distinct from those defined for macroelectrodes. However, these increased charge densities may need to be justified by bench, non-clinical or clinical testing to provide evidence of device safety.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/021001

Cites

87 of 87 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?

  • Current-induced tissue damage during electrical stimulation was avoided by keeping stimulus charge density below the damage threshold boundary.

    “Current-induced tissue damage during electrical stimulation was avoided by keeping stimulus charge density below the damage threshold boundary (20, 21).”

    From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says the Shannon boundary often distinguishes damaging from non-damaging stimulation for large electrodes. But the paper’s section on the origin of the 30 μC cm−2 threshold says charge density alone is insufficient to predict damage: tissue damage can occur below that limit. The claim overstates charge density as a general way to avoid damage. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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.”
  • In Shannon's model, k should be selected between 1.5 and 2.0, with a k-value of 1.5 to 1.8 being most common.

    “k should be selected between 1.5 and 2.0 [65], with a k-value of 1.5 to 1.8 being most common [4].”
  • The popular 30 μC/cm2 charge density threshold considered for macroelectrodes becomes a 4 nC/phase threshold when dealing with microelectrodes.

    “The popular 30 μC/cm2 charge density threshold considered for macroelectrodes becomes a 4 nC/phase (charge per phase) threshold when dealing with microelectrodes”
  • Safety limits must consider stimulation charge density, in particular where neural interfaces are miniaturised, leading to small electrode surface areas.

    “Safety limits must also consider stimulation charge density [117], [118], in particular where neural interfaces are miniaturised, leading to small electrode surface areas.”

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. Shepherd RK McCreery DB 2006 Basis of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the cochlear nucleus Adv Otorhinolaryngol 64 186 205 16891843

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cogan, S. F., Ludwig, K. A., Welle, C. G., & Takmakov, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Cogan, Stuart F
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2016-01-20
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
021001
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2412198820
Cited by
386
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 6
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (FD999999)
  • Office of Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
tissue damage, electrotherapy, bioelectronic medicine, charge density, microelectrodes, macroelectrodes, stimulation safety, pulse frequency, duty cycle, current density, electrode size, histological damage
MeSH terms
Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Humans, Microelectrodes, Models, Theoretical, Sensory Thresholds, Skin

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