In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation

S. Meijs, S. Sørensen, K. Rechendorff, N. Rijkhoff
{"title":"In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation","authors":"S. Meijs, S. Sørensen, K. Rechendorff, N. Rijkhoff","doi":"10.5220/0005606301010105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effect of unsafe stimulation on charge injection limits (Qinj) and pulsing capacitance (Cpulse) was investigated. Four stimulation protocols were applied: 20 mA – 200 and 400 Hz, 50 mA – 200 and 400 Hz. Increasing Qinj and Cpulse were observed for all stimulation protocols. Corrosion was not observed with any of the stimulation protocols and no tissue damage was observed for the 20 mA – 200 Hz stimulation group. This indicates that the ‘safe potential window’ may not be applicable in vivo, as no damage was done stimulating with 20 mA at 200 Hz, while damage was done using the same current at 400 Hz.","PeriodicalId":167011,"journal":{"name":"International Congress on Neurotechnology, Electronics and Informatics","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Congress on Neurotechnology, Electronics and Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5220/0005606301010105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effect of unsafe stimulation on charge injection limits (Qinj) and pulsing capacitance (Cpulse) was investigated. Four stimulation protocols were applied: 20 mA – 200 and 400 Hz, 50 mA – 200 and 400 Hz. Increasing Qinj and Cpulse were observed for all stimulation protocols. Corrosion was not observed with any of the stimulation protocols and no tissue damage was observed for the 20 mA – 200 Hz stimulation group. This indicates that the ‘safe potential window’ may not be applicable in vivo, as no damage was done stimulating with 20 mA at 200 Hz, while damage was done using the same current at 400 Hz.
“不安全”刺激后体内电荷注射限制增加
研究了不安全刺激对充注限(Qinj)和脉冲电容(Cpulse)的影响。采用了四种刺激方案:20 mA - 200和400 Hz, 50 mA - 200和400 Hz。在所有刺激方案中,均观察到沁气和脉冲量增加。任何刺激方案均未观察到腐蚀,20 mA - 200 Hz刺激组未观察到组织损伤。这表明“安全电位窗口”可能不适用于体内,因为用200hz的20ma电流刺激不会造成损伤,而使用400hz的相同电流则会造成损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信