On the parameters used in finite element modeling of compound peripheral nerves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Computational modeling is an important tool for developing and optimizing implantable neural stimulation devices, but requires accurate electrical and geometrical parameter values to improve predictive value. We quantified the effects of perineurial (resistive sheath around each fascicle) and endoneurial (within each fascicle) parameter values for modeling peripheral nerve stimulation. APPROACH: We implemented 3D finite element models of compound peripheral nerves and cuff electrodes to quantify activation and block thresholds of model axons. We also implemented a 2D finite element model of a bundle of axons to estimate the bulk transverse endoneurial resistivity; we compared numerical estimates to an analytical solution. MAIN RESULTS: Since the perineurium is highly resistive, potentials were approximately constant over the cross section of a fascicle, and the perineurium resistivity, longitudinal endoneurial resistivity, and fascicle diameter had important effects on thresholds. Activation thresholds increased up to ~130% for higher perineurium resistivity (~400 versus 2200 Ω m) and by ~35%-250% for lower longitudinal endoneurial resistivity (3.5 versus 0.75 Ω m), with larger increases for smaller diameter axons and for axons in larger fascicles. Further, thresholds increased by ~30%-180% for larger fascicle radii, yielding a larger increase with higher perineurium resistivity. Thresholds were largely insensitive to the transverse endoneurial resistivity, but estimates of the bulk resistivity increased with extracellular resistivity and axonal area fraction; the numerical and analytical estimates were in strong agreement except at high axonal area fractions, where structured axon placements that achieved tighter packing produced electric field inhomogeneities. SIGNIFICANCE: We performed a systematic investigation of the effects of values and methods for modeling the perineurium and endoneurium on thresholds for neural stimulation and block. These results provide guidance for future modeling studies, including parameter selection, data interpretation, and comparison to experimental results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".