Visual cortex responses to suprachoroidal electrical stimulation of the retina: effects of electrode return configuration

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorCicione, Rosemary
dc.contributor.authorShivdasani, Mohit
dc.contributor.authorFallon, James
dc.contributor.authorLuu, Chi
dc.contributor.authorAllen, Penny
dc.contributor.authorRathbone, Graeme
dc.contributor.authorShepherd, Robert
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-04T05:25:44Z
dc.date.available2016-03-04T05:25:44Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractA clinically effective retinal prosthesis must evoke localized phosphenes in a retinotopic manner in response to stimulation of each of the retinal electrodes, evoke brightness cues over a wide dynamic range and function within safe stimulus limits. The effects of varying return configuration for retinal stimulation are currently unknown. To investigate this, we implanted a flexible, 7x12 electrode array into the suprachoroidal space of normally-sighted, anesthetized cats. Multi-unit activity in the primary visual cortex was recorded in response to electrical stimulation using various return configurations: monopolar vitreous (MPV), common ground (CG), hexagonal (HX), monopolar remote (MPR) and bipolar (BP_N). MPV stimulation was found to be the most charge efficient and was most likely to induce cortical activity within safe charge limits. HX and CG stimulation were found to exhibit greater retinal selectivity compared to the MPV return at the expense of lower cortical yield and higher P50 charge levels, while cortical selectivity was unaffected by choice of return. Responses using MPR and widely spaced BP_N configurations were similar to those using the MPV return. These results suggest that choice of return configuration for a retinal prosthesis will be balanced between resolution and stimulation within safe charge limits.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) through its Special Research Initiative (SRI) in Bionic Vision Science and Technology to Bionic Vision Australia and the Bertalli Family Foundation to the Bionics Institute. The Bionics Institute acknowledges the support it receives from the Victorian Government through its Operational Infrastructure Support Programen_US
dc.identifier.citationCicione, R., Shivdasani, M. N., Fallon, J. B., Luu, C. D., Allen, P. J., Rathbone, G. D., ... & Williams, C. E. (2012). Visual cortex responses to suprachoroidal electrical stimulation of the retina: effects of electrode return configuration. Journal of neural engineering, 9(3), 036009.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1741-2552
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.bionicsinstitute.org:8080/handle/123456789/190
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIOP Publishing Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries9;3
dc.titleVisual cortex responses to suprachoroidal electrical stimulation of the retina: effects of electrode return configurationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2012 Cicione, Visual Cortex.pdf
Size:
1.54 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
BI publications