In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation

Suzan Meijs, Søren Sørensen, Kristian Rechendorff, Nico Rijkhoff

Abstract

The effect of unsafe stimulation on charge injection limits (Qinj) and pulsing capacitance (Cpulse) was investigated. Four stimulation protocols were applied: 20 mA – 200 and 400 Hz, 50 mA – 200 and 400 Hz. Increasing Qinj and Cpulse were observed for all stimulation protocols. Corrosion was not observed with any of the stimulation protocols and no tissue damage was observed for the 20 mA – 200 Hz stimulation group. This indicates that the ‘safe potential window’ may not be applicable in vivo, as no damage was done stimulating with 20 mA at 200 Hz, while damage was done using the same current at 400 Hz.

References

  1. Avasarala, B. and Haldar, P., 2010 Electrochemical oxidation behavior of titanium nitride based electrocatalysts under PEM fuel cell conditions Electrochim Acta vol. 55 pp. 9024-9034.
  2. Ballestrasse, C. L., Ruggeri, R. T. and Beck, T. R., 1985. Calculations of the pH changes produced in body tissue by a spherical stimulation electrode Ann. Biomed. Eng. vol. 13 pp. 405-424.
  3. Cogan, S. F., 2008. Neural stimulation and recording electrodes Ann. Rev. Biomed. Eng. vol. 10 pp. 275- 309.
  4. Kane, S. R. et al., 2013. Electrical performance of penetrating microelectrodes chronically implanted in cat cortex IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. vol. 60 pp. 2153- 2160.
  5. Lempka, S. F. et al., 2009. In vivo impedance spectroscopy of deep brain stimulation electrodes J. Neural Eng. vol 6.
  6. Meijs, S. et al., 2015. “Electrochemical properties of titanium nitride nerve stimulation electrodes: an in vitro and in vivo study” Front. Neurosci. vol. 9 art. 268.
  7. Merrill, D. R., Bikson, M. and Jefferys, J. G. R., 2005. Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue: design of efficacious and safe protocols J. Neurosci. Meth. vol. 141 pp. 171-198.
  8. Mortimer, J. T., Kaufman, D. and Roessmann, U., 1980. Intramuscular electrical stimulation: Tissue damage Ann. Biomed. Eng. vol. 8 pp. 235-244.
  9. Newbold, C. et al., 2014. Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes Cochlear Implants Int. vol. 15 pp. 191-199.
  10. Shannon, R. V., 1992. A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. vol. 39 pp. 424- 426.
  11. Tykocinski, M, Cohen, L. T. and Cowan, R. S., 2005. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients Otol. Neurotol. vol. 26 pp. 948-956.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Meijs S., Sørensen S., Rechendorff K. and Rijkhoff N. (2015). In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Neurotechnology, Electronics and Informatics - Volume 1: NEUROTECHNIX, ISBN 978-989-758-161-8, pages 101-105. DOI: 10.5220/0005606301010105


in Bibtex Style

@conference{neurotechnix15,
author={Suzan Meijs and Søren Sørensen and Kristian Rechendorff and Nico Rijkhoff},
title={In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Neurotechnology, Electronics and Informatics - Volume 1: NEUROTECHNIX,},
year={2015},
pages={101-105},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005606301010105},
isbn={978-989-758-161-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Neurotechnology, Electronics and Informatics - Volume 1: NEUROTECHNIX,
TI - In Vivo Charge Injection Limits Increased after 'Unsafe' Stimulation
SN - 978-989-758-161-8
AU - Meijs S.
AU - Sørensen S.
AU - Rechendorff K.
AU - Rijkhoff N.
PY - 2015
SP - 101
EP - 105
DO - 10.5220/0005606301010105