MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986500318 · doi:10.1109/embc.2013.6609619

Analysis of fractal electrodes for efficient neural stimulation

2013· article· en· W1986500318 on OpenAlexaff
Laleh Golestanirad, Claudio Pollo, Simon J. Graham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractalElectrodeComputer scienceStimulationArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planar electrodes are increasingly used in a variety of neural stimulation techniques such as epidural spinal cord stimulation, epidural cortical stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation and functional electric stimulation. Recently, optimized electrode geometries have been shown to increase the efficiency of neural stimulation by maximizing the variation of current density on the electrode surface. In the present work, a new family of modified fractal electrode geometries is developed to increase the neural activation function and enhance the efficiency of neural stimulation. It is hypothesized that the key factor in increasing the activation function in the tissue adjacent to the electrode is to increase the "edginess" of the electrode surface, a concept that is explained and quantified by fractal mathematics. Rigorous finite element simulations were performed to compute the distribution of electric potential produced by proposed geometries, demonstrating that the neural activation function was significantly enhanced in the tissue. The activation of 800 model axons positioned around the electrodes was also quantified, showing that modified fractal geometries yielded a 22% reduction in input power consumption while maintaining the same level of neural activation. The results demonstrate the feasibility of increasing stimulation efficiency using modified fractal geometries beyond the levels already reported in the literature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207