Perry Twyford1, Changsi Cai, Shelley Fried. 1. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The field of retinal prosthetics for artificial vision has advanced considerably in recent years, however clinical outcomes remain inconsistent. The performance of retinal prostheses is likely limited by the inability of electrical stimuli to preferentially activate different types of retinal ganglion cell (RGC). APPROACH: Here we examine the response of rabbit RGCs to high-frequency stimulation, using biphasic pulses applied at 2000 pulses per second. Responses were recorded using cell-attached patch clamp methods, and stimulation was applied epiretinally via a small cone electrode. MAIN RESULTS: When prolonged stimulus trains were applied to OFF-brisk transient (BT) RGCs, the cells exhibited a non-monotonic relationship between response strength and stimulus amplitude; this response pattern was different from those elicited previously by other electrical stimuli. When the amplitude of the stimulus was modulated transiently from a non-zero baseline amplitude, ON-BT and OFF-BT cells exhibited different activity patterns: ON cells showed an increase in activity while OFF cells exhibited a decrease in activity. Using a different envelope to modulate the amplitude of the stimulus, we observed the opposite effect: ON cells exhibited a decrease in activity while OFF cells show an increase in activity. SIGNIFICANCE: As ON and OFF RGCs often exhibit opposing activity patterns in response to light stimulation, this work suggests that high-frequency electrical stimulation of RGCs may be able to elicit responses that are more physiological than traditional pulsatile stimuli. Additionally, the prospect of an electrical stimulus capable of cell-type specific selective activation has broad applications throughout the fields of neural stimulation and neuroprostheses.
OBJECTIVE: The field of retinal prosthetics for artificial vision has advanced considerably in recent years, however clinical outcomes remain inconsistent. The performance of retinal prostheses is likely limited by the inability of electrical stimuli to preferentially activate different types of retinal ganglion cell (RGC). APPROACH: Here we examine the response of rabbit RGCs to high-frequency stimulation, using biphasic pulses applied at 2000 pulses per second. Responses were recorded using cell-attached patch clamp methods, and stimulation was applied epiretinally via a small cone electrode. MAIN RESULTS: When prolonged stimulus trains were applied to OFF-brisk transient (BT) RGCs, the cells exhibited a non-monotonic relationship between response strength and stimulus amplitude; this response pattern was different from those elicited previously by other electrical stimuli. When the amplitude of the stimulus was modulated transiently from a non-zero baseline amplitude, ON-BT and OFF-BT cells exhibited different activity patterns: ON cells showed an increase in activity while OFF cells exhibited a decrease in activity. Using a different envelope to modulate the amplitude of the stimulus, we observed the opposite effect: ON cells exhibited a decrease in activity while OFF cells show an increase in activity. SIGNIFICANCE: As ON and OFF RGCs often exhibit opposing activity patterns in response to light stimulation, this work suggests that high-frequency electrical stimulation of RGCs may be able to elicit responses that are more physiological than traditional pulsatile stimuli. Additionally, the prospect of an electrical stimulus capable of cell-type specific selective activation has broad applications throughout the fields of neural stimulation and neuroprostheses.
Authors: Chris Sekirnjak; Pawel Hottowy; Alexander Sher; Wladyslaw Dabrowski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Eberhart Zrenner; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Heval Benav; Dorothea Besch; Anna Bruckmann; Veit-Peter Gabel; Florian Gekeler; Udo Greppmaier; Alex Harscher; Steffen Kibbel; Johannes Koch; Akos Kusnyerik; Tobias Peters; Katarina Stingl; Helmut Sachs; Alfred Stett; Peter Szurman; Barbara Wilhelm; Robert Wilke Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Kyle Loizos; Robert Marc; Mark Humayun; James R Anderson; Bryan W Jones; Gianluca Lazzi Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Benjamin M Gaub; Michael H Berry; Amy E Holt; Andreas Reiner; Michael A Kienzler; Natalia Dolgova; Sergei Nikonov; Gustavo D Aguirre; William A Beltran; John G Flannery; Ehud Y Isacoff Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Young Jun Yoon; Jae-Ik Lee; Ye Ji Jang; Seungki An; Jae Hun Kim; Shelley I Fried; Maesoon Im Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Jonathan Oesterle; Christian Behrens; Cornelius Schröder; Thoralf Hermann; Thomas Euler; Katrin Franke; Robert G Smith; Günther Zeck; Philipp Berens Journal: Elife Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 8.140