Intracortical bipolar stimulation allows selective activation of neuronal populations in the cortex

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,907 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Intracortical electrical stimulation has emerged as a promising approach for sensory restoration, such as a cortical visual prosthesis, yet its effectiveness is limited by current spread and electrode density constraints.

Objective

To determine whether intracortical bipolar current steering—via modulation of the return electrode position—can enhance neural activation selectivity compared to traditional monopolar stimulation, with the aim of improving spatial precision in sensory restoration.

Methods

We applied intracortical stimulation and used two-photon calcium imaging on acute brain slices to directly visualize neural responses to bipolar stimulation. Biophysical computational modeling was used to complement the experimental results. The analysis included both cellular and population-level assessments to evaluate the impact of several stimulation patterns, such as current direction, electrode spacing and current amplitude, on recruitment patterns.

Results

Bipolar stimulation selectively activated distinct neural populations based on the direction of the current flow. This approach decreased the overlap between activated groups and increased the number of independently addressable neural clusters by up to 9-fold relative to monopolar stimulation. Moreover, the electrode configuration and spacing critically influenced the spatial spread of activation.

Conclusions

Intracortical bipolar current steering enhances neural activation selectivity by engaging independent neural populations through current directionality. These findings suggest that this strategy may improve the spatial precision of neural prosthetics and sensory restoration without the need for an increased electrode density. Competing Interest Statement FC is founder of ReVision Implant. MS, LG and FC are employees of ReVision Implant. All other authors declare they have no competing interests.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00