Abstract
Transcutaneous electrical stimulation is a promising technique for providing prosthetic hand users with information about sensory events. However, questions remain over how to design the stimulation paradigms to provide users the best opportunity to discriminate these events. Here, we investigate if the refractory period influences how the amplitude of the applied stimulus is perceived. Twenty participants completed a two-alternative forced choice experiment. We delivered two stimuli spaced between 250 ms to 450 ms apart (inter-stimulus-interval, isi). The participants reported which stimulus they perceived as strongest. Each stimulus consisted of either a single or paired pulse delivered transcutaneously. The inter-pulse interval (ipi) for the paired pulse stimuli varied between 6 and 10 ms. We found paired pulses with an ipi of 6 ms were perceived stronger than a single pulse less often than paired pulses with an ipi of 8 ms (p = 0.001) or 10 ms (p < 0.0001). Additionally, we found when the isi was 250 ms, participants were less likely to identify the paired pulse as strongest, than when the isi was 350 or 450 ms. This study emphasizes the importance of basing stimulation paradigms on the underlying neural physiology. The results indicate there is an upper limit to the commonly accepted notion that higher stimulation frequencies lead to stronger perception. If frequency is to be used to encode sensory events, then the results suggest stimulus paradigms should be designed using frequencies below 125 Hz.
Highlights
Modulating the peripheral and central nervous system is central to bioelectronic medicine and neuroprosthetics [1]–[6]
If all second pulses of the paired pulse failed in generating action potential (AP), participants would have perceived these trials as two single pulses, leading to an identification of the paired pulse at/close to chance level (50%)
Our results show that this was not the case, which confirms that the second pulse of the paired pulse did not fall within the absolute refractory period
Summary
Modulating the peripheral and central nervous system is central to bioelectronic medicine and neuroprosthetics [1]–[6]. Modulating the peripheral and central nervous system is central to bioelectronic medicine and neuroprosthetics [1]–. Established examples include: cardiac pacemakers, spinal cord stimulators, deep brain stimulators, and cochlear implants [2]. These devices electrically stimulate the nervous system to treat diseases, or restore lost function [4]. Zak McNeill is with the School of Engineering, Newcastle University, UK
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.