Donald R Cantrell et al 2008 J. Neural Eng. 5 54 doi:10.1088/1741-2560/5/1/006
Donald R Cantrell1,2, Samsoon Inayat1,5, Allen Taflove3, Rodney S Ruoff4 and John B Troy1,2
Show affiliationsAn accurate description of the electrode–electrolyte interfacial impedance is critical to the development of computational models of neural recording and stimulation that aim to improve understanding of neuro–electric interfaces and to expedite electrode design. This work examines the effect that the electrode–electrolyte interfacial impedance has upon the solutions generated from time-harmonic finite-element models of cone- and disk-shaped platinum microelectrodes submerged in physiological saline. A thin-layer approximation is utilized to incorporate a platinum–saline interfacial impedance into the finite-element models. This approximation is easy to implement and is not computationally costly. Using an iterative nonlinear solver, solutions were obtained for systems in which the electrode was driven at ac potentials with amplitudes from 10 mV to 500 mV and frequencies from 100 Hz to 100 kHz. The results of these simulations indicate that, under certain conditions, incorporation of the interface may strongly affect the solutions obtained. This effect, however, is dependent upon the amplitude of the driving potential and, to a lesser extent, its frequency. The solutions are most strongly affected at low amplitudes where the impedance of the interface is large. Here, the current density distribution that is calculated from models incorporating the interface is much more uniform than the current density distribution generated by models that neglect the interface. At higher potential amplitudes, however, the impedance of the interface decreases, and its effect on the solutions obtained is attenuated.
87.19.R- Mechanical and electrical properties of tissues and organs
87.80.-y Biophysical techniques (research methods)
Issue 1 (March 2008)
Received 9 July 2007, accepted for publication 8 November 2007
Published 21 December 2007
Donald R Cantrell et al 2008 J. Neural Eng. 5 54
L Coraggio et al 2001 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 27 2351
A Covello et al 2005 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 20 137
Marcel W Pruessner et al 2006 J. Micromech. Microeng. 16 832
M B Plenio and S F Huelga 2008 New J. Phys. 10 113019
Miguel Navascués et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 073013
Laurent Freidel and David Louapre 2003 Class. Quantum Grav. 20 1267
C R Seon et al 2009 New J. Phys. 11 013015
G Öhrwall et al 2002 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 4543
S-W Yu et al 2004 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37 3583