4.4 Article

Electrical stimulation of isolated retina with microwire glass electrodes

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
Volume 137, Issue 2, Pages 265-273

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.02.035

Keywords

retinal prosthesis; isolated retina; stimulating electrodes; blindness; channel glass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of high-resolution retina] prostheses fabricated from silicon wafers presents an interesting problem: how to electrically bridge the space between the flat silicon wafer and the curved retinal surface. One potential bridge is a microwire glass electrode. In this paper we present our results in evaluating microwire glass electrodes. We stimulated isolated rabbit retina (n = 5) with a 0.0256 cm(2) microwire electrode. The current and pulse duration were varied from 498 to 1660 muA and 0.1 to 3 ms, respectively. We found that short pulses produced more spikes per coulomb and longer pulses produced more spikes per milliamp. The optimal pulse duration range of 0.7-1 ms was identified as a compromise between the advantages of short and long pulses. Stimulation of isolated rabbit retina with microwire glass results in consistent neuronal spike formation at safe charge density, 20.7 +/- 14.3 muC/cm(2). We also examined the response of retinas (n = 6) to stimulation with a smaller microwire electrode, 0.0002 cm(2). We found that less current was required (15 muA versus 756 muA) for a I ms pulse, but at the expense of greater charge density (75 muC/cm(2) versus 29.5 muC/cm(2)). Nonetheless, a 128-fold reduction in area resulted in only a 2.7-fold increase in charge density required for a 1 ms pulse duration. The results presented here indicate that microwire glass can be used as a neural stimulating electrode to bridge the gap between flat microelectronic stimulator chips and curved neuronal tissue. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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