CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringMicrobial Inactivation MethodsOcular and Laser Science Research

Tissue Damage by Pulsed Electrical Stimulation

Butterwick, A., Vankov, A., Huie, P., Freyvert, Y., Palanker, D.·2007·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
DOI 10.1109/tbme.2007.908310
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Repeated pulsed electrical stimulation is used in a multitude of neural interfaces; damage resulting from such stimulation was studied as a function of pulse duration, electrode size, and number of pulses using a fluorescent assay on chick chorioallontoic membrane (CAM) in vivo and chick retina in vitro. Data from the chick model were verified by repeating some measurements on porcine retina in-vitro. The electrode size varied from 100 microm to 1 mm, pulse duration from 6 micros to 6 ms, and the number of pulses from 1 to 7500. The threshold current density for damage was independent of electrode size for diameters greater than 300 microm, and scaled as 1/r2 for electrodes smaller than 200 microm. Damage threshold decreased with the number of pulses, dropping by a factor of 14 on the CAM and 7 on the retina as the number of pulses increased from 1 to 50, and remained constant for a higher numbers of pulses. The damage threshold current density on large electrodes scaled with pulse duration as approximately 1/t0.5, characteristic of electroporation. The threshold current density for repeated exposure on the retina varied between 0.061 A/cm2 at 6 ms to 1.3 A/cm2 at 6 micros. The highest ratio of the damage threshold to the stimulation threshold in retinal ganglion cells occurred at pulse durations near chronaxie-around 1.3 ms.

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 · 10.1109/tbme.2007.908310

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Butterwick et al. obtained similar results stimulating chick chorioallontoic membranes and retinas, observing a decrease in threshold current density proportional to increasing pulse duration.

    “Butterwick et al. obtained similar results stimulating chick chorioallontoic membranes and retinas, observing a decrease in threshold current density proportional to increasing pulse duration [80].”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [80]

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: 2

  1. [6][6] W. Liu, E. McGuken, M. Clemments, K. Vichienchom, C. Demarco, M. S. Humayun, E. de Juan, J. Weiland, and R. Greenberg, 'The engineering of a prototype retinal prosthesis,' Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. S782-S782, 1999. -
  2. [8][8] M. Humayun, R. J. Greenberg, B. V. Mech, D. Yanai, M. Mahadevappa, G. van Boemel, G. Y. Fujii, J. D. Weiland, and E. de Juan, 'Chronically implanted intraocular retinal prosthesis in two blind subjects,' Invest. Ophthal. Vis. Sci. , vol. 44, pp. U467-U467, 2003. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Butterwick, A., Vankov, A., Huie, P., Freyvert, Y., & Palanker, D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Sangamo BioSciences (United States) (US)
ORCID
Palanker, D.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2007-12
Volume
54
Issue
12
Pages
2261-2267
ISSN
0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/tbme.2007.908310
OpenAlex
W2146199250
Cited by
136
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/downloads/license-information/IEEE.html (vor)
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY012888)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular and Laser Science Research
Keywords
pulsed electrical stimulation, tissue damage, neural interfaces, threshold current density, pulse duration, electrode size, pulse number, electroporation, chorioallantoic membrane, retina, retinal ganglion cells, chronaxie, porcine retina, chick retina
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Membrane, Cells, Cultured, Chick Embryo, Chickens, Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation, Electric Stimulation, Eye Injuries, Radiation Dosage, Radiation Injuries, Retina, Chorioallantoic Membrane

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