Cited by 31Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringRetinal Development and DisordersPain Management and Treatment

Spatial restriction of neural activation using focused multipolar stimulation with a retinal prosthesis

Open access
Spencer, Thomas C., Fallon, James B., Thien, Patrick C., Shivdasani, Mohit N.·2016·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: The resolution provided by present state-of-the-art retinal prostheses is severely limiting for recipients, partly due to the broad spread of activation in the retina in response to monopolar (MP) electrical stimulation. Focused multipolar (FMP) stimulation has been shown to restrict neural activation in the cochlea compared to MP stimulation. We extended the FMP stimulation technique to a two-dimensional electrode array and compared its efficacy to MP and hexapolar (HP) stimulation in the retina. METHODS: Normally-sighted cats (n = 6) were implanted with a suprachoroidal electrode array containing 42 electrodes. Multichannel multiunit spiking activity was recorded from the visual cortex in response to MP, HP, and FMP retinal stimulation. RESULTS: When inferring retinal spread using voltage recordings off the stimulating array, FMP stimulation showed significantly reduced voltages in regions surrounding the primary stimulating electrode. When measuring the retinal and cortical selectivity of neural responses, FMP and HP stimulation showed significantly higher selectivity compared to MP stimulation (separate 2-way ANOVAs, P < 0.05). However, the lowest cortical thresholds for each stimulating electrode were higher for FMP and HP compared to MP stimulation (1-way ANOVA, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between FMP and HP stimulation in any measures. CONCLUSIONS: Focused multipolar and HP stimulation using a two-dimensional array are promising techniques to reduce the spread of activation for a retinal prosthesis. Clinical application would be expected to result in smaller phosphenes; thus, reducing phosphene overlap between electrodes and increasing the resolution at the expense of higher thresholds for activation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.16-19325

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spencer, T. C., Fallon, J. B., Thien, P. C., & Shivdasani, M. N.
Affiliations
Bionics Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Shivdasani, Mohit N.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2016-06-16
Volume
57
Issue
7
Pages
3181
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2433822421
Cited by
31
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Türk Havacılık ve Uzay Sanayii
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
retinal prosthesis, monopolar stimulation, electrode arrays, stimulation threshold, phosphenes
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Disease Models, Animal, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Prosthesis Design, Retina, Sensory Thresholds, Visual Cortex, Visual Prosthesis, Spatial Processing

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