OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous electrical stimulation of the auricular vagus nerve (pVNS) is an electroceutical technology. The selection of stimulation patterns is empirical, which may lead to under-stimulation or over-stimulation. The objective is to assess the efficiency of different stimulation patterns with respect to individual perception and to compare it with numerical data based on in-silico ear models. METHODS: Monophasic (MS), biphasic (BS) and triphasic stimulation (TS) patterns were tested in volunteers. Different clinically-relevant perception levels were assessed. In-silico models of the human ear were created with embedded fibers and vessels to assess different excitation levels. RESULTS: TS indicates experimental superiority over BS which is superior to MS while reaching different perception levels. TS requires about 57% and 35% of BS and MS magnitude, respectively, to reach the comfortable perception. Experimental thresholds decrease from non-bursted to bursted stimulation. Numerical results indicate a slight superiority of BS and TS over MS while reaching different excitation levels, whereas the burst length has no influence. TS yields the highest number of asynchronous action impulses per stimulation symbol for the used tripolar electrode set-up. CONCLUSION: The comparison of experimental and numerical data favors the novel TS pattern. The analysis separates excitatory pVNS effects in the auricular periphery, as accounted by in-silico data, from the combination of peripheral and central pVNS effects in the brain, as accounted by experimental data. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed approach moves from an empirical selection of stimulation patterns towards efficient and optimized pVNS settings.
OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous electrical stimulation of the auricular vagus nerve (pVNS) is an electroceutical technology. The selection of stimulation patterns is empirical, which may lead to under-stimulation or over-stimulation. The objective is to assess the efficiency of different stimulation patterns with respect to individual perception and to compare it with numerical data based on in-silico ear models. METHODS: Monophasic (MS), biphasic (BS) and triphasic stimulation (TS) patterns were tested in volunteers. Different clinically-relevant perception levels were assessed. In-silico models of the human ear were created with embedded fibers and vessels to assess different excitation levels. RESULTS: TS indicates experimental superiority over BS which is superior to MS while reaching different perception levels. TS requires about 57% and 35% of BS and MS magnitude, respectively, to reach the comfortable perception. Experimental thresholds decrease from non-bursted to bursted stimulation. Numerical results indicate a slight superiority of BS and TS over MS while reaching different excitation levels, whereas the burst length has no influence. TS yields the highest number of asynchronous action impulses per stimulation symbol for the used tripolar electrode set-up. CONCLUSION: The comparison of experimental and numerical data favors the novel TS pattern. The analysis separates excitatory pVNS effects in the auricular periphery, as accounted by in-silico data, from the combination of peripheral and central pVNS effects in the brain, as accounted by experimental data. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed approach moves from an empirical selection of stimulation patterns towards efficient and optimized pVNS settings.
Authors: Babak Dabiri; Klaus Zeiner; Arnaud Nativel; Eugenijus Kaniusas Journal: Analog Integr Circuits Signal Process Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 1.321
Authors: Tamara Seitz; József Constantin Szeles; Reinhard Kitzberger; Johannes Holbik; Alexander Grieb; Hermann Wolf; Hüseyin Akyaman; Felix Lucny; Alexander Tychera; Stephanie Neuhold; Alexander Zoufaly; Christoph Wenisch; Eugenijus Kaniusas Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Babak Dabiri; Stefan Kampusch; Stefan H Geyer; Van Hoang Le; Wolfgang J Weninger; Jozsef Constantin Széles; Eugenijus Kaniusas Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.856
Authors: Adam D Farmer; Adam Strzelczyk; Alessandra Finisguerra; Alexander V Gourine; Alireza Gharabaghi; Alkomiet Hasan; Andreas M Burger; Andrés M Jaramillo; Ann Mertens; Arshad Majid; Bart Verkuil; Bashar W Badran; Carlos Ventura-Bort; Charly Gaul; Christian Beste; Christopher M Warren; Daniel S Quintana; Dorothea Hämmerer; Elena Freri; Eleni Frangos; Eleonora Tobaldini; Eugenijus Kaniusas; Felix Rosenow; Fioravante Capone; Fivos Panetsos; Gareth L Ackland; Gaurav Kaithwas; Georgia H O'Leary; Hannah Genheimer; Heidi I L Jacobs; Ilse Van Diest; Jean Schoenen; Jessica Redgrave; Jiliang Fang; Jim Deuchars; Jozsef C Széles; Julian F Thayer; Kaushik More; Kristl Vonck; Laura Steenbergen; Lauro C Vianna; Lisa M McTeague; Mareike Ludwig; Maria G Veldhuizen; Marijke De Couck; Marina Casazza; Marius Keute; Marom Bikson; Marta Andreatta; Martina D'Agostini; Mathias Weymar; Matthew Betts; Matthias Prigge; Michael Kaess; Michael Roden; Michelle Thai; Nathaniel M Schuster; Nicola Montano; Niels Hansen; Nils B Kroemer; Peijing Rong; Rico Fischer; Robert H Howland; Roberta Sclocco; Roberta Sellaro; Ronald G Garcia; Sebastian Bauer; Sofiya Gancheva; Stavros Stavrakis; Stefan Kampusch; Susan A Deuchars; Sven Wehner; Sylvain Laborde; Taras Usichenko; Thomas Polak; Tino Zaehle; Uirassu Borges; Vanessa Teckentrup; Vera K Jandackova; Vitaly Napadow; Julian Koenig Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 3.169