The Shannon criteria relate two parameters for pulsed electrical stimulation: charge density per phase, D (μCoulombs/(phase•cm²)) and charge per phase, Q (μCoulombs/phase) with a dimensionless parameter k:
Shannon Plot
which can be written alternatively:
According to these criteria, stimulation parameters that yield k ≥ 1.85 (the lowest value where damage was observed in the two studies referenced in the original Shannon publication) could cause damage to the adjacent nervous tissue. Currently, this empirical law is applied in neuromodulation for development of implants for cortical, cochlear, retinal,[2][3] and deep brain stimulation.[4][5] Shannon categorizes the relationship between stimulating electrode and target neural tissue as either Near Field, Mid Field, or Far Field, and discusses how equation parameters may be chosen in each case. In the case of spinal cord stimulation,[6] for example, the Far Field category would apply.
Limitations
The data on which the Shannon model was built[7][8] are restricted to experiments performed in cat cerebral cortex with 7 hours of stimulation under light anesthesia at 50 pps with 400 µs pulses (charge-balanced, symmetric, biphasic, anodic-first) using platinum surface disc electrodes of 1 mm² or larger, recessed, anodized sintered tantalum-tantalum pentoxide pellet electrodes of 1 mm in diameter, or iridium penetrating microelectrodes of 6500 µm². As a result of these restricted methods, Shannon states "A more comprehensive model of safe levels for electrical stimulation would also account for the effects of pulse rate, pulse duration, stimulus duty cycle, and duration of exposure."[1] Additionally, further study has demonstrated that microelectrodes do not obey the Shannon criterion, and new approaches may be proposed to address these limitations.[9]
References
^ abShannon, R.V. (April 1992). "A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation". IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 39 (4): 424–426. doi:10.1109/10.126616. PMID 1592409.
^Eiber, Calvin D; Lovell, Nigel H; Suaning, Gregg J (1 February 2013). "Attaining higher resolution visual prosthetics: a review of the factors and limitations". Journal of Neural Engineering. 10 (1): 011002. Bibcode:2013JNEng..10a1002E. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/1/011002. PMID 23337266.
^Winter, Jessica O.; Cogan, Stuart F.; Rizzo, Joseph F. (January 2007). "Retinal prostheses: current challenges and future outlook". Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition. 18 (8): 1031–1055. doi:10.1163/156856207781494403. PMID 17705997.
^Testerman, Roy L; Rise, Mark T; Stypulkowski, Paul H (Sep–Oct 2006). "Electrical stimulation as therapy for neurological disorder". IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 25 (5): 74–8. doi:10.1109/memb.2006.1705750. PMID 17020202.
^Grill, Warren M (July 2005). "Safety considerations for deep brain stimulation: review and analysis". Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2 (4): 409–420. doi:10.1586/17434440.2.4.409. PMID 16293080.
^Wesselink, WA; Holsheimer, J; Boom, HB (June 1998). "Analysis of current density and related parameters in spinal cord stimulation" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering. 6 (2): 200–7. doi:10.1109/86.681186. PMID 9631328.
^McCreery, DB; Agnew, WF (1988). "Comparison of neural damage induced by electrical stimulation with faradaic and capacitor electrodes". Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 16 (5): 463–81. doi:10.1007/BF02368010. PMID 3189974.
^McCreery, DB; Agnew, WF (1990). "Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation". IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering. 37 (10): 996–1001. doi:10.1109/10.102812. PMID 2249872.
^Cogan SF, Ludwig KA, Welle CG, Takmakov P (2016). "Tissue damage thresholds during therapeutic electrical stimulation". Journal of Neural Engineering. 13 (2): 021001. Bibcode:2016JNEng..13b1001C. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/021001. PMC5386002. PMID 26792176.
Further reading
Merrill, Daniel R.; Bikson, Marom; Jefferys, John G.R. (February 2005). "Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue: design of efficacious and safe protocols". Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 141 (2): 171–198. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.10.020. PMID 15661300.
McCreery, Douglas (2004). "Tissue Reaction to Electrodes:The Problem of Safe and Effective Stimulation of Neural Tissue". In Horch, Kenneth W; Dhillon, Gurpreet S (eds.). Neuroprosthetics. Series on Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering. Vol. 2. pp. 592–611. doi:10.1142/9789812561763_0018. ISBN978-981-238-022-7.
January 06, 2023
shannon, criteria, shannon, criteria, constitute, empirical, rule, neural, engineering, that, used, evaluation, possibility, damage, from, electrical, stimulation, nervous, tissue, shannon, criteria, relate, parameters, pulsed, electrical, stimulation, charge,. The Shannon criteria constitute an empirical rule in neural engineering that is used for evaluation of possibility of damage from electrical stimulation to nervous tissue 1 The Shannon criteria relate two parameters for pulsed electrical stimulation charge density per phase D mCoulombs phase cm and charge per phase Q mCoulombs phase with a dimensionless parameter k Shannon Plot log D k log Q displaystyle log D k log Q which can be written alternatively 10 k Q D displaystyle 10 k Q D According to these criteria stimulation parameters that yield k 1 85 the lowest value where damage was observed in the two studies referenced in the original Shannon publication could cause damage to the adjacent nervous tissue Currently this empirical law is applied in neuromodulation for development of implants for cortical cochlear retinal 2 3 and deep brain stimulation 4 5 Shannon categorizes the relationship between stimulating electrode and target neural tissue as either Near Field Mid Field or Far Field and discusses how equation parameters may be chosen in each case In the case of spinal cord stimulation 6 for example the Far Field category would apply Limitations EditThe data on which the Shannon model was built 7 8 are restricted to experiments performed in cat cerebral cortex with 7 hours of stimulation under light anesthesia at 50 pps with 400 µs pulses charge balanced symmetric biphasic anodic first using platinum surface disc electrodes of 1 mm or larger recessed anodized sintered tantalum tantalum pentoxide pellet electrodes of 1 mm in diameter or iridium penetrating microelectrodes of 6500 µm As a result of these restricted methods Shannon states A more comprehensive model of safe levels for electrical stimulation would also account for the effects of pulse rate pulse duration stimulus duty cycle and duration of exposure 1 Additionally further study has demonstrated that microelectrodes do not obey the Shannon criterion and new approaches may be proposed to address these limitations 9 References Edit a b Shannon R V April 1992 A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 39 4 424 426 doi 10 1109 10 126616 PMID 1592409 Eiber Calvin D Lovell Nigel H Suaning Gregg J 1 February 2013 Attaining higher resolution visual prosthetics a review of the factors and limitations Journal of Neural Engineering 10 1 011002 Bibcode 2013JNEng 10a1002E doi 10 1088 1741 2560 10 1 011002 PMID 23337266 Winter Jessica O Cogan Stuart F Rizzo Joseph F January 2007 Retinal prostheses current challenges and future outlook Journal of Biomaterials Science Polymer Edition 18 8 1031 1055 doi 10 1163 156856207781494403 PMID 17705997 Testerman Roy L Rise Mark T Stypulkowski Paul H Sep Oct 2006 Electrical stimulation as therapy for neurological disorder IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 25 5 74 8 doi 10 1109 memb 2006 1705750 PMID 17020202 Grill Warren M July 2005 Safety considerations for deep brain stimulation review and analysis Expert Review of Medical Devices 2 4 409 420 doi 10 1586 17434440 2 4 409 PMID 16293080 Wesselink WA Holsheimer J Boom HB June 1998 Analysis of current density and related parameters in spinal cord stimulation PDF IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 6 2 200 7 doi 10 1109 86 681186 PMID 9631328 McCreery DB Agnew WF 1988 Comparison of neural damage induced by electrical stimulation with faradaic and capacitor electrodes Annals of Biomedical Engineering 16 5 463 81 doi 10 1007 BF02368010 PMID 3189974 McCreery DB Agnew WF 1990 Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation IEEE Transactions on Bio Medical Engineering 37 10 996 1001 doi 10 1109 10 102812 PMID 2249872 Cogan SF Ludwig KA Welle CG Takmakov P 2016 Tissue damage thresholds during therapeutic electrical stimulation Journal of Neural Engineering 13 2 021001 Bibcode 2016JNEng 13b1001C doi 10 1088 1741 2560 13 2 021001 PMC 5386002 PMID 26792176 Further reading EditMerrill Daniel R Bikson Marom Jefferys John G R February 2005 Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue design of efficacious and safe protocols Journal of Neuroscience Methods 141 2 171 198 doi 10 1016 j jneumeth 2004 10 020 PMID 15661300 McCreery Douglas 2004 Tissue Reaction to Electrodes The Problem of Safe and Effective Stimulation of Neural Tissue In Horch Kenneth W Dhillon Gurpreet S eds Neuroprosthetics Series on Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering Vol 2 pp 592 611 doi 10 1142 9789812561763 0018 ISBN 978 981 238 022 7 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Shannon Criteria amp oldid 995858489, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
