Cited by 112Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit DesignCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors

Electric crosstalk impairs spatial resolution of multi-electrode arrays in retinal implants

Open access
Wilke, R G H, Moghadam, G Khalili, Lovell, N H, Suaning, G J, Dokos, S·2011·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Active multi-electrode arrays are used in vision prostheses, including optic nerve cuffs and cortical and retinal implants for stimulation of neural tissue. For retinal implants, arrays with up to 1500 electrodes are used in clinical trials. The ability to convey information with high spatial resolution is critical for these applications. To assess the extent to which spatial resolution is impaired by electric crosstalk, finite-element simulation of electric field distribution in a simplified passive tissue model of the retina is performed. The effects of electrode size, electrode spacing, distance to target cells, and electrode return configuration (monopolar, tripolar, hexagonal) on spatial resolution is investigated in the form of a mathematical model of electric field distribution. Results show that spatial resolution is impaired with increased distance from the electrode array to the target cells. This effect can be partly compensated by non-monopolar electrode configurations and larger electrode diameters, albeit at the expense of lower pixel densities due to larger covering areas by each stimulation electrode. In applications where multi-electrode arrays can be brought into close proximity to target cells, as presumably with epiretinal implants, smaller electrodes in monopolar configuration can provide the highest spatial resolution. However, if the implantation site is further from the target cells, as is the case in suprachoroidal approaches, hexagonally guarded electrode return configurations can convey higher spatial resolution.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046016

Cites

33 of 33 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 prosthesis users report seeing highly distorted phosphenes that vary in shape across subjects and electrodes and often fail to assemble into more complex percepts.

    “In contrast, current prosthesis users report seeing highly distorted phosphenes, which vary in shape across subjects as well as electrodes and often fail to assemble into more complex percepts (Wilke et al., 2011; Beyeler et al., 2019; Beauchamp et al., 2020; Erickson-Davis and Korzybska, 2021; Fernández et al., 2021).”

    From Towards a <i>Smart Bionic Eye</i> : AI-powered artificial vision for the treatment of incurable blindness (2022) · cites this paper as Wilke et al., 2011

    Section 3.2 says electrode crosstalk degrades the spatial information needed for patterned perception, which supports a possible difficulty forming complex percepts. But the paper models that difficulty rather than reporting that users often experience it. The Discussion reports that subretinal implant users typically describe percepts as compact and round; it does not report highly distorted shapes varying across subjects and electrodes. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilke, R. G. H., Moghadam, G. K., Lovell, N. H., Suaning, G. J., & Dokos, S.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Lovell, N H
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2011-06-15
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
046016
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2084193319
Cited by
110
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • University of New South Wales
  • Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › CCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, microelectrode arrays, spatial resolution, electric field distribution, electrode configuration, monopolar electrodes, electrode diameter, electrode spacing, epiretinal implants, finite element analysis
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Electrodes, Implanted, Electromagnetic Fields, Electronics, Prosthesis Design, Retina, Models, Statistical, Prostheses and Implants, Finite Element Analysis

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