Pulsatile electrical stimulation creates predictable, correctable disruptions in neural firing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical stimulation is a key tool in neuroscience, both in brain mapping studies and in many therapeutic applications such as cochlear, vestibular, and retinal neural implants. Due to safety considerations, stimulation is restricted to short biphasic pulses. Despite decades of research and development, neural implants lead to varying restoration of function in patients. In this study, we use computational modeling to provide an explanation for how pulsatile stimulation affects axonal channels and therefore leads to variability in restoration of neural responses. The phenomenological explanation is transformed into equations that predict induced firing rate as a function of pulse rate, pulse amplitude, and spontaneous firing rate. We show that these equations predict simulated responses to pulsatile stimulation with a variety of parameters as well as several features of experimentally recorded primate vestibular afferent responses to pulsatile stimulation. We then discuss the implications of these effects for improving clinical stimulation paradigms and electrical stimulation-based experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".