大鼠硬膜外脊髓背侧和腹侧刺激的激活和选择性比较:一项计算模型研究。

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Dinglong Yan, Zheshan Guo, Haipeng Liu, Xiao Wang, Fengyan Liang, Jing Jie, Ming Yin
{"title":"大鼠硬膜外脊髓背侧和腹侧刺激的激活和选择性比较:一项计算模型研究。","authors":"Dinglong Yan, Zheshan Guo, Haipeng Liu, Xiao Wang, Fengyan Liang, Jing Jie, Ming Yin","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-19555-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) enhances motor function recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) by modulating distinct spinal pathways through dorsal epidural electrical stimulation (dEES) and ventral epidural electrical stimulation (vEES). The characteristics between dEES and vEES remain insufficiently explored. To address this, a rat spinal computational model was developed, integrating finite element analysis and nerve fiber modeling to simulate the effects of dEES and vEES. The potential distribution generated by EES was coupled with Aα-sensory and α-motor fibers to compute thresholds, saturation amplitudes, and selectivity indices across stimulation modes. The analysis showed that dEES exhibited lower thresholds and saturation amplitudes, while vEES achieved higher muscle selectivity. Multipolar stimulation dispersed currents across multiple spinal segments, reducing target muscle selectivity and increasing thresholds and saturation amplitudes compared to monopolar stimulation. Although stimulation frequency had little effect on selectivity in both dEES and vEES, higher frequencies in dEES reduced the stimulation intensity required to achieve maximum selectivity. These findings reveal key differences in activation characteristics between dEES and vEES and highlight their potential roles in neuromodulation. Most importantly, we provided a fiber-level explanation for these differences in rats and supplemented our findings with a comparative analysis of previous studies. These insights lay a foundation for future rodent experiments aimed at optimizing epidural stimulation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"35711"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12518515/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of activation and selectivity in dorsal and ventral epidural spinal cord stimulation in rats: a computational modeling study.\",\"authors\":\"Dinglong Yan, Zheshan Guo, Haipeng Liu, Xiao Wang, Fengyan Liang, Jing Jie, Ming Yin\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-19555-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) enhances motor function recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) by modulating distinct spinal pathways through dorsal epidural electrical stimulation (dEES) and ventral epidural electrical stimulation (vEES). The characteristics between dEES and vEES remain insufficiently explored. To address this, a rat spinal computational model was developed, integrating finite element analysis and nerve fiber modeling to simulate the effects of dEES and vEES. The potential distribution generated by EES was coupled with Aα-sensory and α-motor fibers to compute thresholds, saturation amplitudes, and selectivity indices across stimulation modes. The analysis showed that dEES exhibited lower thresholds and saturation amplitudes, while vEES achieved higher muscle selectivity. Multipolar stimulation dispersed currents across multiple spinal segments, reducing target muscle selectivity and increasing thresholds and saturation amplitudes compared to monopolar stimulation. Although stimulation frequency had little effect on selectivity in both dEES and vEES, higher frequencies in dEES reduced the stimulation intensity required to achieve maximum selectivity. These findings reveal key differences in activation characteristics between dEES and vEES and highlight their potential roles in neuromodulation. Most importantly, we provided a fiber-level explanation for these differences in rats and supplemented our findings with a comparative analysis of previous studies. These insights lay a foundation for future rodent experiments aimed at optimizing epidural stimulation strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"35711\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12518515/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19555-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19555-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

硬膜外电刺激(EES)通过背侧硬膜外电刺激(dee)和腹侧硬膜外电刺激(vEES)调节不同的脊髓通路,促进脊髓损伤(SCI)后运动功能的恢复。本科院校与中小企业之间的特点尚未得到充分探讨。为了解决这个问题,我们建立了一个大鼠脊柱计算模型,将有限元分析和神经纤维建模相结合,模拟了dEES和vEES的影响。将EES产生的电位分布与α-感觉纤维和α-运动纤维耦合,计算不同刺激模式下的阈值、饱和振幅和选择性指数。分析表明,dee具有较低的阈值和饱和幅度,而vEES具有较高的肌肉选择性。与单极刺激相比,多极刺激将电流分散到多个脊髓节段,降低了目标肌肉的选择性,提高了阈值和饱和幅度。尽管刺激频率对dEES和vEES的选择性影响不大,但更高的dEES频率降低了达到最大选择性所需的刺激强度。这些发现揭示了dee和vEES之间激活特征的关键差异,并强调了它们在神经调节中的潜在作用。最重要的是,我们为大鼠的这些差异提供了纤维水平的解释,并通过对先前研究的比较分析补充了我们的发现。这些见解为未来旨在优化硬膜外刺激策略的啮齿动物实验奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of activation and selectivity in dorsal and ventral epidural spinal cord stimulation in rats: a computational modeling study.

Epidural electrical stimulation (EES) enhances motor function recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) by modulating distinct spinal pathways through dorsal epidural electrical stimulation (dEES) and ventral epidural electrical stimulation (vEES). The characteristics between dEES and vEES remain insufficiently explored. To address this, a rat spinal computational model was developed, integrating finite element analysis and nerve fiber modeling to simulate the effects of dEES and vEES. The potential distribution generated by EES was coupled with Aα-sensory and α-motor fibers to compute thresholds, saturation amplitudes, and selectivity indices across stimulation modes. The analysis showed that dEES exhibited lower thresholds and saturation amplitudes, while vEES achieved higher muscle selectivity. Multipolar stimulation dispersed currents across multiple spinal segments, reducing target muscle selectivity and increasing thresholds and saturation amplitudes compared to monopolar stimulation. Although stimulation frequency had little effect on selectivity in both dEES and vEES, higher frequencies in dEES reduced the stimulation intensity required to achieve maximum selectivity. These findings reveal key differences in activation characteristics between dEES and vEES and highlight their potential roles in neuromodulation. Most importantly, we provided a fiber-level explanation for these differences in rats and supplemented our findings with a comparative analysis of previous studies. These insights lay a foundation for future rodent experiments aimed at optimizing epidural stimulation strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信