4.4 Article

Electrical stimulation of mammalian retinal ganglion cells with multielectrode arrays

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 6, Pages 3311-3327

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01168.2005

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-12893, EY-13150] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Existing epiretinal implants for the blind are designed to electrically stimulate large groups of surviving retinal neurons using a small number of electrodes with diameters of several hundred micrometers. To increase the spatial resolution of artificial sight, electrodes much smaller than those currently in use are desirable. In this study, we stimulated and recorded ganglion cells in isolated pieces of rat, guinea pig, and monkey retina. We used microfabricated hexagonal arrays of 61 platinum disk electrodes with diameters between 6 and 25 mu m, spaced 60 mu m apart. Charge-balanced current pulses evoked one or two spikes at latencies as short as 0.2 ms, and typically only one or a few recorded ganglion cells were stimulated. Application of several synaptic blockers did not abolish the evoked responses, implying direct activation of ganglion cells. Threshold charge densities were typically < 0.1mC/cm(2) for a pulse duration of 100 mu s, corresponding to charge thresholds of < 100 pC. Stimulation remained effective after several hours and at high frequencies. To show that closely spaced electrodes can elicit independent ganglion cell responses, we used the multielectrode array to stimulate several nearby ganglion cells simultaneously. From these data, we conclude that electrical stimulation of mammalian retina with small-diameter electrode arrays is achievable and can provide high temporal and spatial precision at low charge densities. We review previous epiretinal stimulation studies and discuss our results in the context of 32 other publications, comparing threshold parameters and safety limits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available