Electrical stimulation causes rapid changes in electrode impedance of cell-covered electrodes

Animal and clinical observations of a reduction in electrode impedance following electrical stimulation encouraged the development of an in vitro model of the electrode-tissue interface. This model was used previously to show an increase in impedance with cell and protein cover over electrodes. In this paper, the model was used to assess the changes in electrode impedance and cell cover following application of a charge-balanced biphasic current pulse train. Following stimulation, a large and rapid drop in total impedance (Z(t)) and access resistance (R(a)) occurred. The magnitude of this impedance change was dependent on the current amplitude used, with a linear relationship determined between R(a) and the resulting cell cover over the electrodes. The changes in impedance due to stimulation were shown to be transitory, with impedance returning to pre-stimulation levels several hours after cessation of stimulation. A loss of cells over the electrode surface was observed immediately after stimulation, suggesting that the level of stimulation applied was creating localized changes to cell adhesion. Similar changes in electrode impedance were observed for in vivo and in vitro work, thus helping to verify the in vitro model, although the underlying mechanisms may differ. A change in the porosity of the cellular layer was proposed to explain the alterations in electrode impedance in vitro. These in vitro studies provide insight into the possible mechanisms occurring at the electrode-tissue interface in association with electrical stimulation.

[1]  R.V. Shannon,et al.  A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Douglas McCreery,et al.  TISSUE REACTION TO ELECTRODES: THE PROBLEM OF SAFE AND EFFECTIVE STIMULATION OF NEURAL TISSUE , 2004 .

[3]  D.B. McCreery,et al.  Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation , 1990, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  James D. Weiland,et al.  Chronic neural stimulation with thin-film, iridium oxide electrodes , 2000, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng..

[5]  Joachim Wegener,et al.  Recovery of adherent cells after in situ electroporation monitored electrically. , 2002, BioTechniques.

[6]  James D. Weiland,et al.  Dynamic Current Density of the Disk Electrode Double-Layer , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  Robert K. Shepherd,et al.  Stimulus Induced pH Changes in Cochlear Implants: An In Vitro and In Vivo Study , 2001, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  James C. Weaver,et al.  Electroporation of cells and tissues , 2000 .

[9]  I. Giaever,et al.  Monitoring electropermeabilization in the plasma membrane of adherent mammalian cells. , 1993, Biophysical journal.

[10]  Joachim Wegener,et al.  Electrical wound-healing assay for cells in vitro. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Robert Cowan,et al.  Changes in biphasic electrode impedance with protein adsorption and cell growth , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  Robert Cowan,et al.  An in vitro model for investigating impedance changes with cell growth and electrical stimulation: implications for cochlear implants , 2004, Journal of neural engineering.

[13]  P A Busby,et al.  Electrode impedance in adults and children using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system , 2002, Cochlear implants international.

[14]  J. Aran,et al.  Electrical and physiological changes during short-term and chronic electrical stimulation of the normal cochlea , 1997, Hearing Research.

[15]  D. McCreery,et al.  Comparison of neural damage induced by electrical stimulation with faradaic and capacitor electrodes , 2006, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: direct current measurement in vivo , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.