Analysis of fractal electrodes for efficient neural stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planar electrodes are increasingly used in therapeutic neural stimulation techniques such as functional electrical stimulation, epidural spinal cord stimulation (ESCS), and cortical stimulation. Recently, optimized electrode geometries have been shown to increase the efficiency of neural stimulation by increasing the variation of current density on the electrode surface. In the present work, a new family of modified fractal electrode geometries is developed to enhance the efficiency of neural stimulation. It is shown that a promising approach in increasing the neural activation function 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 electric potential produced by proposed modified fractal geometries. The activation of 256 model axons positioned around the electrodes was then quantified, showing that modified fractal geometries required a 22% less input power while maintaining the same level of neural activation. Preliminary in vivo experiments investigating muscle evoked potentials due to median nerve stimulation showed encouraging results, supporting the feasibility of increasing neural stimulation efficiency using modified fractal geometries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".