4.7 Article

Focal Electrical Stimulation of Major Ganglion Cell Types in the Primate Retina for the Design of Visual Prostheses

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 17, 页码 7194-7205

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4967-12.2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Eye Institute [R01EY021271]
  2. Sanofi-Aventis
  3. Salk Institute for Biological Studies
  4. Joseph Alexander Foundation
  5. National Science Foundation [PHY-0750525]
  6. National Institutes of Health [5R21EB004410]
  7. McKnight Foundation
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/E039731/1]
  9. Royal Society of Edinburgh
  10. Research Councils UK
  11. EPSRC [GR/R89189/01]
  12. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
  13. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G042446/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. EPSRC [EP/G042446/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrical stimulation of retinal neurons with an advanced retinal prosthesis may eventually provide high-resolution artificial vision to the blind. However, the success of future prostheses depends on the ability to activate the major parallel visual pathways of the human visual system. Electrical stimulation of the five numerically dominant retinal ganglion cell types was investigated by simultaneous stimulation and recording in isolated peripheral primate (Macaca sp.) retina using multi-electrode arrays. ON and OFF midget, ON and OFF parasol, and small bistratified ganglion cells could all be activated directly to fire a single spike with submillisecond latency using brief pulses of current within established safety limits. Thresholds for electrical stimulation were similar in all five cell types. In many cases, a single cell could be specifically activated without activating neighboring cells of the same type or other types. These findings support the feasibility of direct electrical stimulation of the major visual pathways at or near their native spatial and temporal resolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据