Literature DB >> 25650414

Retinal origin of electrically evoked potentials in response to transcorneal alternating current stimulation in the rat.

Andrzej T Foik1, Ewa Kublik1, Elena G Sergeeva2, Turgut Tatlisumak3, Paolo M Rossini4, Bernhard A Sabel2, Wioletta J Waleszczyk1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Little is known about the physiological mechanisms underlying the reported therapeutic effects of transorbital alternating current stimulation (ACS) in vision restoration, or the origin of the recorded electrically evoked potentials (EEPs) during such stimulation. We examined the issue of EEP origin and electrode configuration for transorbital ACS and characterized the physiological responses to CS in different structures of the visual system.
METHODS: We recorded visually evoked potentials (VEPs) and EEPs from the rat retina, visual thalamus, tectum, and visual cortex. The VEPs were evoked by light flashes and EEPs were evoked by electric stimuli delivered by two electrodes placed either together on the same eye or on the eyeball and in the neck. Electrically evoked potentials and VEPs were recorded before and after bilateral intraorbital injections of tetrodotoxin that blocked retinal ganglion cell activity.
RESULTS: Tetrodotoxin abolished VEPs at all levels in the visual pathway, confirming successful blockage of ganglion cell activity. Tetrodotoxin also abolished EEPs and this effect was independent of the stimulating electrode configurations.
CONCLUSIONS: Transorbital electrically evoked responses in the visual pathway, irrespective of reference electrode placement, are initiated by activation of the retina and not by passive conductance and direct activation of neurons in other visual structures. Thus, placement of stimulating electrodes exclusively around the eyeball may be sufficient to achieve therapeutic effects. Copyright 2015 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEPs; VEPs; electrophysiology; retinal ganglion cells; transorbital alternating current stimulation; visual dysfunctions; visual pathway; visual rehabilitation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25650414     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-15617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  14 in total

1.  Whole-eye electrical stimulation therapy preserves visual function and structure in P23H-1 rats.

Authors:  Adam M Hanif; Moon K Kim; Joel G Thomas; Vincent T Ciavatta; Micah Chrenek; John R Hetling; Machelle T Pardue
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 3.467

Review 2.  Electrical Stimulation as a Means for Improving Vision.

Authors:  Amer Sehic; Shuai Guo; Kin-Sang Cho; Rima M Corraya; Dong F Chen; Tor P Utheim
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Retinal neurovascular responses to transcorneal electrical stimulation measured with optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  Xiaofan Su; Hao Zheng; Qian Li; Pengcheng Sun; Meixuan Zhou; Heng Li; Jiahui Guo; Xinyu Chai; Chuanqing Zhou
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2020-01-20

4.  Restoration of visual function in adult mice with an inherited retinal disease via adenine base editing.

Authors:  Susie Suh; Elliot H Choi; Henri Leinonen; Andrzej T Foik; Gregory A Newby; Wei-Hsi Yeh; Zhiqian Dong; Philip D Kiser; David C Lyon; David R Liu; Krzysztof Palczewski
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 25.671

5.  Multi-channel transorbital electrical stimulation for effective stimulation of posterior retina.

Authors:  Sangjun Lee; Jimin Park; Jinuk Kwon; Dong Hwan Kim; Chang-Hwan Im
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Glaucoma -state of the art and perspectives on treatment.

Authors:  Anna Wójcik-Gryciuk; Małgorzata Skup; Wioletta J Waleszczyk
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.406

7.  Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Carolin Gall; Sein Schmidt; Michael P Schittkowski; Andrea Antal; Géza Gergely Ambrus; Walter Paulus; Moritz Dannhauer; Romualda Michalik; Alf Mante; Michal Bola; Anke Lux; Siegfried Kropf; Stephan A Brandt; Bernhard A Sabel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation: from acute to late-stage treatment of central nervous system damage.

Authors:  Petra Henrich-Noack; Elena G Sergeeva; Bernhard A Sabel
Journal:  Neural Regen Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.135

9.  Electrical brain stimulation induces dendritic stripping but improves survival of silent neurons after optic nerve damage.

Authors:  Petra Henrich-Noack; Elena G Sergeeva; Torben Eber; Qing You; Nadine Voigt; Jürgen Köhler; Sebastian Wagner; Stefanie Lazik; Christian Mawrin; Guihua Xu; Sayantan Biswas; Bernhard A Sabel; Christopher Kai-Shun Leung
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Effects of alternating current stimulation on the healthy and diseased brain.

Authors:  Aini Ismafairus Abd Hamid; Carolin Gall; Oliver Speck; Andrea Antal; Bernhard A Sabel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.