4.6 Article

Different pulse shapes to obtain small fiber selective activation by anodal blocking - A simulation study

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 698-706

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2004.826663

Keywords

anodal blocking; charge reduction; selective stimulation; two-step pulse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate whether it is possible to reduce a charge per pulse, which is needed for selective nerve stimulation. Simulation is performed using a two-part simulation model: a volume conductor model to calculate the electrical potential distribution inside a tripolar cuff electrode and a human fiber model to simulate the fiber response to simulation. Selective stimulation is obtained by anodal block. To obtain anodal block of large fibers, long square pulses (> 350 mus) with a relatively high currents (1-2.5 mA) are usually required. These pulses might not be safe for a long-term application because of a high charge per pulse. In this study, several pulse shapes are proposed that have less charge per pulse compared with the conventional square pulse and would therefore be safer in a chronic application. Compared with the conventional square pulse, it was possible to reduce the charge with all proposed pulse shapes, but the best results are obtained with a combination of a square depolarizing pulse and a blocking pulse. The charge per pulse was up to 32% less with that pulse shape than with a square pulse. Using a hyperpolarizing anodal prepulse preceding a square pulse, it was not possible to block nerve fibers in a whole nerve bundle and to obtain reduction of a charge per phase. Reduction of the charge could be achieved only with spatially selective blocking. The charge per phase was larger for the combination of a hyperpolarizing anodal prepulse and a two-step pulse than for the two-step pulse alone.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available