Skip to main content
PMC home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 1988 Dec;54(6):975–981. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(88)83035-2

Analytical theory for extracellular electrical stimulation of nerve with focal electrodes. I. Passive unmyelinated axon.

J T Rubinstein 1, F A Spelman 1
PMCID: PMC1330410  PMID: 3233274

Abstract

The cable model of a passive, unmyelinated fiber in an applied extracellular field is derived. The solution is valid for an arbitrary, time-varying, applied field, which may be determined analytically or numerically. Simple analytical computations are presented. They explain a variety of known phenomena and predict some previously undescribed properties of extracellular electrical stimulation. The polarization of a fiber in an applied field behaves like the output of a spatial high-pass and temporal low-pass filter of the stimulus. High-frequency stimulation results in a more spatially restricted region of fiber excitation, effectively reducing current spread relative to that produced by low-frequency stimulation. Chronaxie measured extracellularly is a function of electrode position relative to the stimulated fiber, and its value may differ substantially from that obtained intracellularly. Frequency dependence of psychophysical threshold obtained by electrical stimulation of the macaque cochlea closely follows the frequency dependence of single-fiber passive response.

Full text

PDF
980

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abzug C., Maeda M., Peterson B. W., Wilson V. J. Cervical branching of lumbar vestibulospinal axons. J Physiol. 1974 Dec;243(2):499–522. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BeMent S. L., Ranck J. B., Jr A model for electrical stimulation of central myelinated fibers with monopolar electrodes. Exp Neurol. 1969 Jun;24(2):171–186. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(69)90013-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. GACEK R. R., RASMUSSEN G. L. Fiber analysis of the statoacoustic nerve of guinea pig, cat, and monkey. Anat Rec. 1961 Apr;139:455–463. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091390402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hambrecht F. T. Neural prostheses. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1979;8:239–267. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.08.060179.001323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kiang N. Y., Moxon E. C. Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1972 Oct;81(5):714–730. doi: 10.1177/000348947208100513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McNeal D. R. Analysis of a model for excitation of myelinated nerve. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1976 Jul;23(4):329–337. doi: 10.1109/tbme.1976.324593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Paintal A. S. The influence of diameter of medullated nerve fibres of cats on the rising and falling phases of the spike and its recovery. J Physiol. 1966 Jun;184(4):791–811. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp007948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. RANCK J. B., Jr Analysis of specific impedance of rabbit cerebral cortex. Exp Neurol. 1963 Feb;7:153–174. doi: 10.1016/s0014-4886(63)80006-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ranck J. B., Jr Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res. 1975 Nov 21;98(3):417–440. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(75)90364-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rushton W. A. A physical analysis of the relation between threshold and interpolar length in the electric excitation of medullated nerve. J Physiol. 1934 Oct 17;82(3):332–352. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1934.sp003185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rushton W. A. The effect upon the threshold for nervous excitation of the length of nerve exposed, and the angle between current and nerve. J Physiol. 1927 Sep 9;63(4):357–377. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1927.sp002409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. STEN-KNUDSEN O. Is muscle contraction initiated by internal current flow? J Physiol. 1960 May;151:363–384. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1960.sp006444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sachs M. B., Young E. D., Miller M. I. Speech encoding in the auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implants. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1983;405:94–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb31622.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Townshend B., White R. L. Reduction of electrical interaction in auditory prostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1987 Nov;34(11):891–897. doi: 10.1109/tbme.1987.326102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tranchina D., Nicholson C. A model for the polarization of neurons by extrinsically applied electric fields. Biophys J. 1986 Dec;50(6):1139–1156. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(86)83558-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES