Literature DB >> 15068182

Movements elicited by electrical stimulation of muscles, nerves, intermediate spinal cord, and spinal roots in anesthetized and decerebrate cats.

Yoichiro Aoyagi1, Vivian K Mushahwar, Richard B Stein, Arthur Prochazka.   

Abstract

Electrical stimulation offers the possibility of restoring motor function of paralyzed limbs after spinal-cord injury or stroke, but few data are available to compare possible sites of stimulation, such as muscle, nerve, spinal roots, or spinal cord. The aim of this study was to establish some characteristics of stimulation at these sites in the anesthetized and midcollicular decerebrate cat. The hind limb was constrained to move in the sagittal plane against a spring load. Ventral-root stimulation only produced movements down and back; the direction moved systematically backward the more caudal the stimulated roots. In contrast, dorsal-root stimulation only produced movements up and forward. Thus, neither method alone could produce the full range of normal movements. Muscle, nerve, and intraspinal stimulation within the intermediate regions of the gray matter generated discrete, selective movements in a wide range of directions. Muscle stimulation required an order of magnitude more current. Single microwire electrodes located in the spinal gray matter could activate a synergistic group of muscles, and generally had graded recruitment curves, but the direction of movement occasionally changed abruptly as stimulus strength increased. Nerve stimulation produced the largest movements against the spring load (>80% of the passive range of motion) and was the most reproducible from animal to animal. However, recruitment curves with nerve stimulation were quite steep, so fine control of movement might be difficult. The muscle, nerve, and spinal cord all seem to be feasible sites to restore motor function. The pros and cons from this study may be helpful in deciding the best site for a particular application, but further tests are needed in the chronically transected spinal cord to assess the applicability of these results to human patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15068182     DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2003.823268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng        ISSN: 1534-4320            Impact factor:   3.802


  11 in total

1.  Intraspinal microstimulation preferentially recruits fatigue-resistant muscle fibres and generates gradual force in rat.

Authors:  J A Bamford; C T Putman; V K Mushahwar
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-10-20       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Modularity of endpoint force patterns evoked using intraspinal microstimulation in treadmill trained and/or neurotrophin-treated chronic spinal cats.

Authors:  Vanessa S Boyce; Michel A Lemay
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-12-31       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Upper-limb muscle responses to epidural, subdural and intraspinal stimulation of the cervical spinal cord.

Authors:  Abigail N Sharpe; Andrew Jackson
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Hindlimb movement in the cat induced by amplitude-modulated stimulation using extra-spinal electrodes.

Authors:  Changfeng Tai; Jicheng Wang; Bing Shen; Xianchun Wang; James R Roppolo; William C de Groat
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 5.  Intraspinal microstimulation for the recovery of function following spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jeremy A Bamford; Vivian K Mushahwar
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

6.  Reanimating the arm and hand with intraspinal microstimulation.

Authors:  Jonas B Zimmermann; Kazuhiko Seki; Andrew Jackson
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  Chronic neuromuscular electrical stimulation of paralyzed hindlimbs in a rodent model.

Authors:  Ranu Jung; Kazuhiko Ichihara; Ganapriya Venkatasubramanian; James J Abbas
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 2.390

8.  Hindlimb endpoint forces predict movement direction evoked by intraspinal microstimulation in cats.

Authors:  Michel A Lemay; Dane Grasse; Warren M Grill
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 3.802

Review 9.  Spinal cord injury: present and future therapeutic devices and prostheses.

Authors:  Simon F Giszter
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.620

10.  Real-time control of hind limb functional electrical stimulation using feedback from dorsal root ganglia recordings.

Authors:  Tim M Bruns; Joost B Wagenaar; Matthew J Bauman; Robert A Gaunt; Douglas J Weber
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 5.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.