Cargando…
A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis
Altering the geometry of microelectrodes for use in a cortical neural prosthesis modifies the electric field generated in tissue, thereby affecting electrode efficacy and tissue damage. Commonly, electrodes with an active region located at the tip (“conical” electrodes) are used for stimulation of c...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23060789 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2012.00023 |
_version_ | 1782244950741614592 |
---|---|
author | Brunton, Emma Lowery, Arthur J. Rajan, Ramesh |
author_facet | Brunton, Emma Lowery, Arthur J. Rajan, Ramesh |
author_sort | Brunton, Emma |
collection | PubMed |
description | Altering the geometry of microelectrodes for use in a cortical neural prosthesis modifies the electric field generated in tissue, thereby affecting electrode efficacy and tissue damage. Commonly, electrodes with an active region located at the tip (“conical” electrodes) are used for stimulation of cortex but there is argument to believe this geometry may not be the best. Here we use finite element analysis to compare the electric fields generated by three types of electrodes, a conical electrode with exposed active tip, an annular electrode with active area located up away from the tip, and a striped annular electrode where the active annular region has bands of insulation interrupting the full active region. The results indicate that the current density on the surface of the conical electrodes can be up to 10 times greater than the current density on the annular electrodes of the same height, which may increase the propensity for tissue damage. However choosing the most efficient electrode geometry in order to reduce power consumption is dependent on the distance of the electrode to the target neurons. If neurons are located within 10 μm of the electrode, then a small conical electrode would be more power efficient. On the other hand if the target neuron is greater than 500 μm away—as happens normally when insertion of an array of electrodes into cortex results in a “kill zone” around each electrode due to insertion damage and inflammatory responses—then a large annular electrode would be more efficient. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3460534 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34605342012-10-11 A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis Brunton, Emma Lowery, Arthur J. Rajan, Ramesh Front Neuroeng Neuroscience Altering the geometry of microelectrodes for use in a cortical neural prosthesis modifies the electric field generated in tissue, thereby affecting electrode efficacy and tissue damage. Commonly, electrodes with an active region located at the tip (“conical” electrodes) are used for stimulation of cortex but there is argument to believe this geometry may not be the best. Here we use finite element analysis to compare the electric fields generated by three types of electrodes, a conical electrode with exposed active tip, an annular electrode with active area located up away from the tip, and a striped annular electrode where the active annular region has bands of insulation interrupting the full active region. The results indicate that the current density on the surface of the conical electrodes can be up to 10 times greater than the current density on the annular electrodes of the same height, which may increase the propensity for tissue damage. However choosing the most efficient electrode geometry in order to reduce power consumption is dependent on the distance of the electrode to the target neurons. If neurons are located within 10 μm of the electrode, then a small conical electrode would be more power efficient. On the other hand if the target neuron is greater than 500 μm away—as happens normally when insertion of an array of electrodes into cortex results in a “kill zone” around each electrode due to insertion damage and inflammatory responses—then a large annular electrode would be more efficient. Frontiers Media S.A. 2012-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3460534/ /pubmed/23060789 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2012.00023 Text en Copyright © 2012 Brunton, Lowery and Rajan. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Brunton, Emma Lowery, Arthur J. Rajan, Ramesh A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title | A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title_full | A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title_short | A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
title_sort | comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3460534/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23060789 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2012.00023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bruntonemma acomparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis AT loweryarthurj acomparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis AT rajanramesh acomparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis AT bruntonemma comparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis AT loweryarthurj comparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis AT rajanramesh comparisonofmicroelectrodesforavisualcorticalprosthesisusingfiniteelementanalysis |