4.4 Article

Direct current contamination of kilohertz frequency alternating current waveforms

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 232, 期 -, 页码 74-83

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.04.002

关键词

Kilohertz high frequency alternating current; Nerve block; KHFAC; HFAC; Direct current; DC in KHFAC

资金

  1. NIH NINDS [R01-NS-074149]
  2. NIDDK [R01-DK-077089]
  3. NIBIB [R01-EB-002091]
  4. Department of Veteran's Affairs VA RRD [B6685R]
  5. Case Coulter Translation & Innovation Partnership
  6. Fulbright Foundation [G-1-00001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kilohertz frequency alternating current (KHFAC) waveforms are being evaluated in a variety of physiological settings because of their potential to modulate neural activity uniquely when compared to frequencies in the sub-kilohertz range. However, the use of waveforms in this frequency range presents some unique challenges regarding the generator output. In this study we explored the possibility of undesirable contamination of the KHFAC waveforms by direct current (DC). We evaluated current- and voltage-controlled KHFAC waveform generators in configurations that included a capacitive coupling between generator and electrode, a resistive coupling and combinations of capacitive with inductive coupling. Our results demonstrate that both voltage- and current-controlled signal generators can unintentionally add DC-contamination to a KHFAC signal, and that capacitive coupling is not always sufficient to eliminate this contamination. We furthermore demonstrated that high value inductors, placed in parallel with the electrode, can be effective in eliminating DC-contamination irrespective of the type of stimulator, reducing the DC contamination to less than 1 mu A. This study highlights the importance of carefully designing the electronic setup used in KHFAC studies and suggests specific testing that should be performed and reported in all studies that assess the neural response to KHFAC waveforms. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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