Patent Grant
11420064
The present invention relates to application of a neural stimulus, and in particular relates to applying a neural stimulus in a controlled manner by using one or more electrodes implanted proximal to the neural pathway. The present invention also relates to controlling a neural response to a stimulus, and in particular relates to measurement of a compound action potential by using one or more electrodes implanted proximal to the neural pathway, in order to provide feedback to control subsequently applied stimuli.
There are a range of situations in which it is desirable to apply neural stimuli in order to give rise to a compound action potential (CAP). For example, neuromodulation is used to treat a variety of disorders including chronic pain, Parkinson's disease, and migraine. A neuromodulation system applies an electrical pulse to tissue in order to generate a therapeutic effect. When used to relieve chronic pain, the electrical pulse is applied to the dorsal column (DC) of the spinal cord. Such a system typically comprises an implanted electrical pulse generator, and a power source such as a battery that may be rechargeable by transcutaneous inductive transfer. An electrode array is connected to the pulse generator, and is positioned in the dorsal epidural space above the dorsal column. An electrical pulse applied to the dorsal column by an electrode causes the depolarisation of neurons, and generation of propagating action potentials. The fibres being stimulated in this way inhibit the transmission of pain from that segment in the spinal cord to the brain. To sustain the pain relief effects, stimuli are applied substantially continuously, for example at 100 Hz.
While the clinical effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is well established, the precise mechanisms involved are poorly understood. The DC is the target of the electrical stimulation, as it contains the afferent Aβ fibres of interest. Aβ fibres mediate sensations of touch, vibration and pressure from the skin, and are thickly myelinated mechanoreceptors that respond to non-noxious stimuli. The prevailing view is that SCS stimulates only a small number of Aβ fibres in the DC. The pain relief mechanisms of SCS are thought to include evoked antidromic activity of Aβ fibres having an inhibitory effect, and evoked orthodromic activity of Aβ fibres playing a role in pain suppression. It is also thought that SCS recruits Aβ nerve fibres primarily in the DC, with antidromic propagation of the evoked response from the DC into the dorsal horn thought to synapse to wide dynamic range neurons in an inhibitory manner.
Neuromodulation may also be used to stimulate efferent fibres, for example to induce motor functions. In general, the electrical stimulus generated in a neuromodulation system triggers a neural action potential which then has either an inhibitory or excitatory effect. Inhibitory effects can be used to modulate an undesired process such as the transmission of pain, or to cause a desired effect such as the contraction of a muscle.
The action potentials generated among a large number of fibres sum to form a compound action potential (CAP). The CAP is the sum of responses from a large number of single fibre action potentials. The CAP recorded is the result of a large number of different fibres depolarising. The propagation velocity is determined largely by the fibre diameter and for large myelinated fibres as found in the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) and nearby dorsal column the velocity can be over 60 ms−1. The CAP generated from the firing of a group of similar fibres is measured as a positive peak potential P1, then a negative peak N1, followed by a second positive peak P2. This is caused by the region of activation passing the recording electrode as the action potentials propagate along the individual fibres. An observed CAP signal will typically have a maximum amplitude in the range of microvolts, whereas a stimulus applied to evoke the CAP is typically several volts.
For effective and comfortable operation, it is necessary to maintain stimuli amplitude or delivered charge above a recruitment threshold, below which a stimulus will fail to recruit any neural response. It is also necessary to apply stimuli which are below a comfort threshold, above which uncomfortable or painful percepts arise due to increasing recruitment of Aδ fibres which are thinly myelinated sensory nerve fibres associated with acute pain, cold and pressure sensation. In almost all neuromodulation applications, a single class of fibre response is desired, but the stimulus waveforms employed can recruit other classes of fibres which cause unwanted side effects, such as muscle contraction if motor fibres are recruited. The task of maintaining appropriate neural recruitment is made more difficult by electrode migration and/or postural changes of the implant recipient, either of which can significantly alter the neural recruitment arising from a given stimulus, depending on whether the stimulus is applied before or after the change in electrode position or user posture. Postural changes alone can cause a comfortable and effective stimulus regime to become either ineffectual or painful.
Any discussion of documents, acts, materials, devices, articles or the like which has been included in the present specification is solely for the purpose of providing a context for the present invention. It is not to be taken as an admission that any or all of these matters form part of the prior art base or were common general knowledge in the field relevant to the present invention as it existed before the priority date of each claim of this application.
Throughout this specification the word “comprise”, or variations such as “comprises” or “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps, but not the exclusion of any other element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps.
According to a first aspect the present invention provides a method of applying a neural stimulus with an implanted electrode array, the method comprising:
According to a second aspect the present invention provides a device for applying a neural stimulus, the device comprising:
By providing for a second stimulus to be delivered in the neural refractory period following the first stimulus, the present invention provides for de-correlated, or less correlated, fibre responses to be evoked by such stimuli.
The sequence of neural stimuli may comprise more than two stimuli, each being delivered in the refractory period following a previous stimulus in the sequence.
The sequence of neural stimuli may comprise stimuli of ascending amplitude.
The sequence of neural stimuli may be applied sequentially by a single electrode.
Alternatively, the sequence of neural stimuli may be applied sequentially by more than one electrode. In such embodiments, the second stimulus is preferably delivered at a time after the first stimulus which allows for cessation of the first stimulus and allows for propagation of a first neural response evoked by the first stimulus from the first electrode to the second electrode, so that the second stimulus is delivered during a refractory period of neurons proximal to the second electrode after activation of those neurons by the evoked neural response from the first stimulus.
Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments the sequence of neural stimuli may be applied by consecutive electrodes positioned along an electrode array.
In embodiments where the sequence of neural stimuli is applied sequentially by more than one electrode, the timing of the respective stimuli in the sequence may be controlled in order to cause spatiotemporal alignment of the respective evoked responses propagating in a first direction along the nerve fibre to thereby cause correlation and summation of evoked responses in the first direction, while causing spatiotemporal misalignment of the respective evoked responses propagating in a second direction opposite the first direction along the nerve fibre, to thereby decorrelate evoked responses propagating in the second direction. Such embodiments may be advantageous in decorrelating evoked potentials propagating toward the brain, where it is desired to avoid or minimise any percept from the stimuli.
In some embodiments of the invention, the sequence of neural stimuli may be followed by a single stimulus which is not applied during the refractory period of any preceding stimulus, and which is not closely followed by any subsequent stimulus in the refractory period of the single stimulus. Such embodiments may be applied in order to enable an evoked response measurement to be made following the single stimulus, to enable ongoing refinement of stimulus parameters of the sequence of neural stimuli.
According to a third aspect the present invention provides a computer program product comprising computer program code means to make a computer execute a procedure for applying a neural stimulus with an implanted electrode array, the computer program product comprising computer program code means for carrying out the method of the first aspect.
According to a fourth aspect the present invention provides an automated method of controlling a neural stimulus, the method comprising:
According to a fifth aspect the present invention provides an implantable device for applying a neural stimulus, the device comprising:
The set of parameter values defining the stimulus may comprise one or more of: stimulus current, pulse amplitude, phase duration, interphase gap duration, pulse shape, repetition rate, electrode selection and electrode combination.
In preferred embodiments, the stimulus parameters are refined on an ongoing basis in order to adaptively control the stimuli in response to postural changes of the user. In such embodiments, the parameter search space may be reassessed on a regular basis, for example once a second. Alternatively the parameter search space may be reassessed only in response to a trigger, such as a signal from an accelerometer which has detected patient movement, thereby avoiding excessive power consumption at times when the patient is not moving.
In some embodiments of the invention, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of neural fibre conduction velocity. In such embodiments, the measured neural fibre conduction velocity may be used to determine selectivity of recruitment of a target fibre class, for comparison to a desired fibre class recruitment ratio or range as defined by the desired response. For example for pain suppression the desired response may be defined as requiring high selectivity of Aβ fibres.
Additionally or alternatively, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of neural response amplitude. In such embodiments, the parameter search space may be explored by iteratively applying stimuli and measuring neural responses in order to identify a “perception” threshold for stimulus current, below which no evoked response arises from stimulus. Additionally or alternatively, such embodiments may explore the parameter search space in order to identify a “maximum” or “comfort” threshold at a current level above which a slow response first starts to arise, by assessing the neural response amplitude at an expected time of occurrence of any slow response, such as about 3-4 ms after stimulation.
In embodiments where the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response comprise a measure of neural response amplitude, the stimulus parameters may be refined on an ongoing basis in order to adaptively control the stimuli in response to postural changes of the user so as to maintain the evoked response amplitude at a fixed point above the perception threshold. Such embodiments may thus enable a controlled level of neural recruitment even during user postural changes, and may also be of benefit in avoiding misalignment of induced paraesthesia from a preferred location. To maximally align induced paraesthesia with a preferred location, the stimulus parameters may include a body map setting out the location of effects of stimuli when applied by each electrode of an electrode array. The body map may be predefined and based on patient feedback to clinical trial stimuli, or may be subject to revision during ongoing use for example by way of user input upon a remote control of the implant.
In embodiments where the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response comprise a measure of neural response amplitude, the stimulus parameters may be refined on an ongoing basis in order to maintain stimuli at a sub-threshold level, for example as may be intended for non-paraesthesia therapeutic use.
In some embodiments, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise measures of variations of an amplitude of a fast neural response in response to varied stimulus current. In such embodiments, a comfort level threshold may be defined relative to an inflection point marking decelerating growth of the fast response amplitude in response to increasing stimulus current. Such embodiments recognise that deceleration in the growth of the fast response amplitude in response to increasing stimulus current generally reflects where further recruitment starts to fall and undesirable side effects begin such as onset or increase of a slow neural response.
In some embodiments, where the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response comprise measures of variations of an amplitude of a fast neural response in response to varied stimulus current, the stimulus may be maintained within a linear range of the neural recruitment vs. current curve, and an electrode-to-fibre distance d may be estimated. An estimate for d may be obtained by measuring the amplitude (Re1p1, Re5p1) of the neural response as measured at two spaced apart sense electrodes (denoted e1 and e5) for a first stimulus, and measuring the amplitude (Re1p2, Re5p2) of the neural response at the two sense electrodes for the same stimulus after a change in d. This embodiment recognises that despite a scaling factor Ss due to changed measurement sensitivity with d, these measurements permit the change in recruitment scaling factor As in response to d to be calculated as:
(Re1p2/Re1p1)−(Re5p2/Re5p1)=As
Additionally or alternatively, the electrode to fibre distance d may in some embodiments be estimated by obtaining neural response amplitude measurements in response to at least two stimuli of differing current level, the stimuli being substantially within a linear range of the neural recruitment vs. current curve. Taking a linear extrapolation of the amplitude measurements to the x-axis (i.e. the point of zero neural response) provides an estimate of the stimulus current threshold.
In embodiments obtaining an estimate of the electrode to fibre distance d, this estimate may be used to influence stimulus current and/or to appropriately scale measured neural responses to compensate for altered measurement sensitivity, in order to maintain constant or controlled neural recruitment.
In some embodiments of the invention, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of dispersion of the response relative to distance from the stimulus site. In such embodiments, changes in dispersion may be used as indication of changes in electrode-to-fibre distance d, wherein increased dispersion correlates to increased electrode-to-fibre distance d.
In some embodiments of the invention, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of fast neural response peak position relative to stimulus. In some embodiments of the invention, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of the fast neural response peak width. In such embodiments, the electrode-to-fibre distance d, and/or the neural recruitment efficacy, may be estimated by reference to peak position and/or peak width of the fast neural response, with a faster narrower peak reflecting greater recruitment and potentially a movement of the electrode towards the fibre.
In some embodiments of the invention, the one or more characteristics of the measured neural response may comprise a measure of spectral characteristics of the evoked response. In such embodiments, the electrode-to-fibre distance d may be determined by reference to the spectral characteristics, recognising that a transfer function of an action potential along a nerve fibre, and laterally to a sense electrode, depends on d. For example, changes in d may be detected and estimated by selecting two different frequencies which are prominent in the spectrum of the CAP, and examining the ratio between the two frequencies over time.
According to a sixth aspect the present invention provides a computer program product comprising computer program code means to make a computer execute a procedure for automated control of a neural stimulus, the computer program product comprising computer program code means for carrying out the method of the fourth aspect.
An example of the invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
The activation and simultaneous suppression of different areas of tissue is highly desired for treatment of a number of neurological disorders. The activation of micturition or defection without contraction of the sphincter is highly desirable for treatment of incontinence. The goal of stimulation of the spinal cord is to block transmission of pain signals from Aδ and C fibres, via the inhibitory effect of the activation of Aβ fibres. The ascending Aβ fibres produce a psycho-physiological response which results in the paraesthesia (described as tingling by recipients). A number of ways to reduce or eliminate this effect have been suggested. It has been reported that burst mode stimulation or continuous stimulation at high frequencies can produce pain relief without accompanying paraesthesia, however the mechanisms are not clear.
One possible explanation is that the high frequency stimulation results in a highly uncorrelated neural firing pattern in the ascending Aβ tracts. High frequency stimulation results in the continuous activation of the fibres and produces a randomised firing pattern. The recovery time (refractory period) between each fibre is slightly different and if a depolarisation potential is present as the fibre comes out of refractory period, it will depolarise again, but not synchronised with other fibres which may still be in their refractory periods. The net result is a randomisation of the firing pattern and a return of the stochastic response in the fibre.
Measurements of the evoked neural response provide a direct measure of the degree of correlation of the firing pattern.
The probability of any single fibre responding is a function of the properties and history of the fibre and the amplitude of the current pulse. Although short and long pulses for an equivalent charge may recruit the same number of fibres the longer lower current amplitude pulse will recruit the fibres over a longer time scale than the higher current shorter pulse width.
Patients report a preference for stimulation with longer pulse widths and the reason for this preference may be because the perceptual side effect is lower, because there is a lower correlation between the fibres firing. Given this observation, highly uncorrelated responses may give rise to much lower psycho-physical side effects such as tingling sensations and paraesthesia. The evoked responses measured for the longer pulse widths are broader in
Measurement of the evoked response provides a unique way to assess the degree of correlation amongst fibres in a group, as the peak width and amplitude of the measured response directly relates to the degree of timing synchronisation of the single fibre action potentials which sum to form the compound action potential. The goal of stimulus design is to achieve a high level of recruitment at the segmental level and a low level of correlation for the ascending segments. The neural response measurement obtained at each sense electrode may be conducted in accordance with the techniques set out in Daly (2007/0225767), the content of which is incorporated herein by reference. Additionally or alternatively, the neural response measurement may be conducted in accordance with the techniques set out in Nygard (U.S. Pat. No. 5,785,651), the content of which is incorporated herein by reference. Additionally or alternatively, the neural response measurement may be conducted in accordance with the techniques set out in the Australian provisional patent application filed simultaneously herewith in the name of National ICT Australia Ltd entitled “Method and apparatus for measurement of neural response”.
The degree of correlation within an evoked response can be measured with such techniques, and pulse sequences can be designed to produce evoked responses of a desired character. A typical recruitment curve is shown in
The timing of each pulse can be so arranged so that the travelling CAPs from each individual pulse cancel each other as they sum at some distance from the stimulation site. This indicates the degree of desynchronisation between the fibres, and as the sensory input is based on correlation of firing patterns the sensation (paraesthesia) is reduced. However, the activation of the inhibitory effect of the Aβ fibres at the segmental level is not reduced, permitting Aβ inhibition of Aδ and C propagation to occur, as desired.
The concept of a selection of stimulus sequences based on the ERT recorded parameters can be greatly extended. For instance the example of
A single non-decorrelating stimulus can be applied to the nerve by the device periodically or occasionally in order to elicit an evoked response which is then used as the input to the control loop. This probe stimulus can be adjusted so that its charge is equivalent to the charge presented by the desynchronising stimuli. The frequency of the probe pulse to desynchronising pulses can then be adjusted to minimise the perceptual side effects. The probe frequency can also be adjusted on demand, responding more rapidly to changes in movement, for example.
Conduction of the compound action potentials occurs both orthodromically (up the spine) and antidromically (down the spine). Careful choice of stimulus design can be used to create a situation where the degree of synchronisation can be different in both directions, and controllably so. For example it may be desirable to generate stimuli which result in synchronising Aβ activation in the antidromic direction and a desynchronising activity in the orthodromic direction. One possible scheme for doing this is illustrated in
A possible means but not the only means to achieve such directional selectivity of CAP correlation is to arrange a series of stimulus pulses with an interpulse interval equal to the difference in propagation time required for desynchronisation of the CAP in the ascending direction.
Note that the order in which the stimuli are presented does not need to be sequential. The amplitudes of the individual stimuli can also be varied according to the scheme of
Improvements in efficiency and recruitment selectivity are highly desirable. There have been two major types of stimulus waveforms used to generate propagating action potentials: voltage control and current control. Current control pulses are normally biphasic—current is passed from one electrode to another in the system, and then reversed. A typical biphasic charge-balanced stimulus pulse has an amplitude (A) and width (t) with an interphase gap Ø, as shown in
Moreover, the present invention recognises that non-rectangular pulses have an effect on the strength-duration relationships of recruitment.
If there is a wide range of different fibre diameters being recruited then the (N1t−P2t) will spread out as the action potential propagates up the spinal cord. This is because as disparate fibre classes are recruited, the P-N-P morphology of the CAP is replaced by a more complicated waveform, which can generally be thought of as equivalent to the summation of one P-N-P wave per fibre class.
There are thus two salient parameters which may be focused upon. First, the strength (amplitude) of the evoked response, which relates to the recruitment. Second, the evoked response dispersion which relates to the selectivity of fibre classes.
The present invention recognises that there are a number of ways to adjust the stimulus parameters (such as stimulus shape and amplitude) in order to optimise the selectivity and efficiency of recruitment. However, the past approach of optimising a stimulus on the basis of patient feedback is entirely impractical when the parameter search space is made so large as to include pulse shape, amplitude, interphase gap, and so on. Accordingly, to search for an optimally efficient set of stimulus pulse parameters, the present embodiment provides for automated optimisation of the stimulus pulse parameters based on measurement of the evoked response arising from test stimuli having varied stimulus parameters. The stimulus optimisation process in this embodiment occurs automatically, and may be completed within minutes and therefore performed regularly, as opposed to clinical optimisation.
There are a number of ways to adjust the stimulus parameters. In the present embodiment, the stimulus parameter search space is explored by iteratively applying stimuli and obtaining measurements of neural responses thereto, assessing how well the measured response confirms to a desired response, and refining the stimulus parameters in accordance with a genetic, heuristic or other search algorithm. A genetic algorithm, for example, may separate the parameter set into two sets of traits, and iteratively modify the contents of each set, whereby each iteration combines the traits of the more successful parameter values to form a new set of parameters for stimulus application.
The present embodiment thus permits a considerably more generalised definition of the stimulus, as shown in
For example, a pure sinusoidal response can be generated with f(t) as a sin function g=0, A2=A3=0. A conventional square biphasic pulse has a parameter set F1(t)=−F2(t)=A1=A2=−A3=−A4.
By iteratively refining the stimulus parameters and applying differing stimuli under control of a suitable search algorithm e.g. a genetic algorithm, the stimulus parameter search space can be effectively and swiftly explored to identify a specific set of values for the stimulus parameters which best generate a desired evoked response. There are several parameters that are useful to optimise for the individual. The total charge delivered per stimulus pulse determines the power consumption of the device and hence the time between recharges for a rechargeable device or the lifetime of the device for a non-rechargeable device. The pulse parameters, duration of the inter-phase gap etc, can be varied and the combination which delivers the desired evoked response for the minimum delivered charge can be determined by application of a suitable search technique.
The present invention may further provide for partly or completely automated device fitting. The amplitude of the evoked response provides a measure of the recruitment of the fibres being stimulated. The greater the stimulus, the more recruitment and the larger the evoked response. A plot of the compound action potentials measured in a sheep spine for a number of stimulus amplitudes is shown in
There are a number of factors which can influence the amplitude of the response generated by a fixed set of stimulation parameters.
The evoked response for the Aβ fibres can be used in a number of ways during the implantation and subsequent programming of the device. These include:
1. Determining the optimal combination of electrodes to generate the desired therapeutic effect;
2. Selection of the stimulus parameters to generate the desired therapeutic effect;
3. Continuous adjustment of the stimulus parameters to remove variations in recruitment induced by movement, or relative movement of the spinal cord with respect to the electrode position; and
4. Minimisation of stimulation side effects
Very often during the assessment of patient suitability for spinal cord stimulation, a trial period is undertaken during which an electrode is temporarily implanted in the epidural space above the spinal cord. The CAP measures of the present invention can be recorded during this implantation and may provide sufficient diagnostic indicator of neurophysiological response to warrant the surgeon performing an implant of the full system.
The evoked response recorded from the epidural space in the spinal cord varies with the stimulus amplitude and has two components at high amplitudes. It consists of an immediate response (short duration characteristic of the response from fibres with a high conduction velocity), followed by a response with a much longer time scale. The shorter response is characteristic of the recruitment of Aβ fibres in the dorsal column. The response which occurs at longer time scales involves motor system neural responses, EMG, etc. These signal features are shown in
The normal clinical procedure for adjustment of spinal cord stimulation parameters involves adjustment of pulse width, current and rate to place an induced paraesthesia over the site of pain. There is an upper limit to the intensity of the stimulation, beyond which the patient will not accept further increases, referred to as the dose limit. For some patients this point also corresponds to the point where effective paraesthesia is present and there is good pain relief, however for some, the side effect of the stimulation is intolerable for the patient. Overstimulation of Aβ fibres is also unpleasant for the recipient and unfortunately results in poor efficacy because, although good coverage is obtained, the patient cannot take benefit from the treatment because the side effects are too severe.
The fibre types that are responding at the dose limit have been assessed from patient feedback of the sensations induced. Selected results include:
The Aβ fibres are large in diameter (13-20 μm) and much larger than Aδ fibres (1-5 μm) and C fibres (0.2-1.5 μm). The C fibres have the slowest conduction velocity 0.5 to 2.0 m·s−1 whereas Aδ fibres have conduction velocity of 3-30 m·s−1.
Considering the propagation velocity of recruited Aδ fibres ascending the spinal cord is m·s−1, and a typical distance of a spinal cord electrode array is 7 cm long, the propagation delay from one end of the electrode array to the other is 4.6 ms.
The present embodiment thus recognises that evoked response measurements such as those of
An alternative measure of the patient's posture (e.g. angle detection via a triaxial accelerometer) may be used to select the slow response threshold. Alternatively, an algorithm may be implemented in the implant which simply looks for the presence of a slow response and reduces the output of the stimulator should a slow response be detected.
Another embodiment provides for measurement of a stimulation threshold and creation of a percept body map. The stimulation threshold for neural recruitment can be determined from the peak to peak amplitudes of the fast response. It corresponds to the minimum stimulation level required to produce a psycho-physical sensation. One difficulty faced in programming any neuromodulation system is to determine the locus of stimulation on a perceptual body map. This is because, in existing systems, there is no way to standardise the stimulus such that it produces a constant level of recruitment. Varying the stimulus amplitude has an effect on both the locus of the perceived stimulation and on the area covered. Stimulating at fixed point above threshold (n·Te) for the Aβ fibres allows stimulation at fixed level of recruitment. An accurate body map relating percept with electrode stimulation location can be determined by stimulating each electrode in turn and asking the patient to locate the locus of perception on a graphical body map. The thresholds can be determined for single electrodes as stimulating sites, or for two electrodes used in parallel as a single site, or any other applicable combination of electrodes.
A body map based on threshold or other constant recruitment condition is a useful reference for device control, as it provides a method to select electrodes to achieve the desired level of coverage.
Currently, the task of a clinician programming such a system is to optimise the pain relief by selecting stimulus parameters and location to achieve coverage, i.e. matching the area of paraesthesia with the area over which the patient experiences pain. The choice between stimulating at one or two locations can have an impact on the power consumption of the system. Mapping the percepts at constant Aβ evoked responses allows the clinician and user to quickly identify electrodes which are aligned with the regions required for pain relief. The differences in percept for different combinations of electrodes provide a guide for lowering power consumption. For example, where two electrodes correspond to the same paraesthesia location, then stimulation on those two together will reduce the power consumption of the device.
Yet another embodiment provides for stimulation below the threshold at which paraesthesia is perceived. There are a number of therapeutic benefits obtainable from spinal cord stimulation. For example spinal cord stimulation has been used to treat chronic peripheral vascular disease, in which the mode of action appears to be stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Spinal cord stimulation has also been found to be effective in the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. The control of stimulus parameters is complex in this clinical condition. The clinician is not necessarily aiming to produce a paraesthesia in order to generate clinically therapeutic stimulation of the sympathetic nerves. However, in conventional SCS systems, the only indicator that stimulus parameters are producing neuronal depolarisations is through the patient reporting the presence of a paraesthesia. The present embodiment, using neural response measurements, provides a method to objectively quantify the stimulation threshold and may thus permit effective use of sub-threshold stimuli. Using this threshold and its potential variations due to posture, a stimulus parameter can be selected which is below psychophysical threshold, so that continual excitation can be achieved which is below sensation threshold, and independent of posture.
In another embodiment, the fast response is measured to set the comfort level without reference to the slow response and indeed possibly without ever causing a slow response. The recorded electrically evoked compound action potential is the sum of a multitude of single fibre evoked responses, and its strength represents the level of recruitment of the fibres (i.e. the size of the signal is proportional to the number of fibres responding to the stimulus). A convenient way to represent this is to measure the peak to peak amplitude of the response (C-B in
The amplitude growth curve for the peak to peak response is readily obtained by measuring the responses at different stimulus parameters (pulse width and current level). The charge on the electrode generates equivalent responses independent of the pulse width. The fast response amplitude growth curve, as illustrated in
Electrode to electrode variation in stimulus thresholds may indicate differences in proximity of electrode to the spinal cord, or that the electrode may be adjacent to neural regions of greater sensitivity. The procedure to locate the ideal electrodes for stimulation efficiency is to create an electrode sensitivity map. This is obtained simply by performing a stimulus current sweep on each electrode, while obtaining neural response measurements at each level, so as to obtain the evoked response amplitude vs. stimulus current curve, for all stimulating sites.
Further embodiments of the invention provide for estimation of the spinal cord-to-electrode distance. In order to maintain a constant level of recruitment, it is necessary to estimate the evoked neural response level arising from a particular stimulation. Given that one of the primary factors affecting recruitment efficacy is relative motion between the spinal cord and the electrodes, it is extremely useful to estimate the cord-electrode distance.
In another embodiment for estimating the cord-to-electrode distance, the relationship of the evoked SCP to the stimulation is exploited. For simple stimulation in the linear region of the amplitude growth curve, recruitment varies with the number of fibres for which the activating function (the axial second derivative of voltage) is above threshold. It can be shown that, in a homogeneous volume conductor (HVC), the activating function varies with 1/d2. Hence, for a fixed stimulus current in a HVC, the recruitment varies approximately with 1/d2. This embodiment also recognises that, in measuring the SCP, two distance-related factors are prominent. Due to the nature of the fibre, having discrete nodes of Ranvier easily modelled as a line of point current sources, the SCP amplitude in a HVC varies with 1/d2 (as well as with fibre diameter). This means that in the linear region of the amplitude growth curve, the combined effect of recruitment sensitivity to d and measurement sensitivity to d causes the measured SCP amplitude to approximately vary with current*1/d2*1/d2, or current/d4. Based on this recognition, this embodiment therefore applies an algorithm which uses probe stimuli in the linear range (between threshold and onset of saturation), to estimate the cord distance relative to some calibration value. Hence, the recruitment can be estimated for a particular stimulus, relative to some calibration point.
In another embodiment of the invention lateral movement of an electrode is monitored and estimated. This embodiment recognises that anecdotal data from sheep experiments, as well as a consideration of spinal cord anatomy, suggests that as the epidural stimulation site shifts laterally from the midline, the chance of eliciting motor reflexes and other responses of the motor neurons increases. For a given stimulus intensity, if the slow responses appear or become larger than previously, this is an indicator that lateral movement of the electrode has occurred. This scenario may lead to undesired sensation and may need to be rectified. In such embodiments a paddle electrode may be used, comprising multiple columns of electrodes, and then the selection of stimulation electrodes may be changed such that the new stimulus electrodes are medial of the previous off-center stimulating electrodes. If a single “percutaneous” electrode array is used, the stimulus intensity may be reduced to avoid the undesired sensation produced, or again the stimulus location may be shifted.
Embodiments of the invention may be applied only occasionally, for example only in a clinical setting. Alternatively, automated neural response measurements in accordance with the various embodiments of the invention may be used regularly, or even substantially continuously to adjust the system in real time.
Yet another embodiment of the invention may obtain measures of both the neural response and also electrode impedance as measures of activity for adjustment of the system. The evoked response measurements are sensitive to the distance between the excited neural tissue and the sense electrode. Variations in the position of the electrode affect both the level of recruitment and also the strength of the measured evoked response due to the losses of the electric field propagating in the medium. The variation in the evoked response which is induced by relative movement of the electrode and spinal cord can be used to detect activity and movement of the recipient.
Many recipients of spinal neuromodulators report discomfort or changes in modulation with movement. The evoked potential change could be used to control the stimulus current in a “tight” feedback loop or in a “loose” feedback loop, in order to avoid the stimulus from causing discomfort when the user moves or changes posture. In a loose feedback loop, the evoked response could be used to control the stimulus between say two values, a first setting used for ambulatory periods or periods of activity, and a second setting used for periods with relatively stable evoked response measures. A useful example may be the detection of periods of sleep (relatively low movement) where it would be desirable to turn down the amount of stimulation to conserve battery life during periods of rest. Alternatively, during periods of high activity it may be preferable for the implantee to receive a lower therapeutic (or no therapeutic stimulation) to lower the likelihood of unwanted undesirable stimulation.
In this embodiment, changes in movement are detected and the pattern of these changes is used to control device parameters. In addition to adjusting the stimulus level, this embodiment adjusts other device parameters which have an impact on the operation of the system. Noting that continuous recording of the evoked potential consumes additional electrical power, this embodiment further controls the rate at which measurements are obtained in response to the level of activity. The level of implantee activity may also be logged by the system and used as a measure of the performance of the system in achieving pain relief.
In embodiments addressing postural changes, a further issue arises in that gross posture alone (as might be measured by an implanted accelerometer) may not sufficiently indicate the appropriate parameters.
In such embodiments utilising simultaneous neural response measurements and accelerometer posture measurements, determining the patient parameters comprises:
1. the neural response measurement system is used to record responses under an initially programmed set of conditions.
2. The patient changes posture and the posture is measured via accelerometer and responses recorded at the new posture.
3. Adjustments are made to the stimulus parameters based on the evoked response measurements. The adjustments are made to bring the neural response measure equal to the first neural response measure, preferably accounting for varying measurement sensitivity arising from a changed electrode-to-fibre distance d. Note that the adjustments can be done automatically in a feedback loop.
4. A table of program parameters versus posture parameters is updated with new posture data and program data determined from the neural response.
The process outlined can use any or all of the feedback techniques described herein to adjust the stimulation parameters automatically. In this way programming of the device for different posture settings is simply a matter of setting up the process as described and asking the patient to vary their posture. This could be done over days, for example during the trial stimulation period, improving data quality. An indicator could be provided to give feedback to the patient on the percentage of possible posture variations as determined by the range of the measurement device.
Another advantage of the system as described is the ability to identify postures for which there are ambiguous stimulation parameters; for example, supine with straight legs versus supine with knees to chest. Continuous recording of both posture and feedback parameters based on neural response measurements may allow identification of posture values for which there are two or more different stimulation parameters. If used without neural response measurements, the patient parameter set chosen from an ambiguous parameter set could be the set corresponding to the lowest stimulation current, thus preventing unwanted side effects.
Neural response measurements conducted during a trial stimulation period may be used to create a table of parameters for use with accelerometer-based implants. Neural response measurements can also be used continuously with accelerometer-based measurement. An accelerometer or simple passive movement detection could be used as an indicator of activity. Neural response measurements consume power and so the rate at which they are obtained will have an impact on the battery life of the system. It is highly desirable to manage the rate of measurement (and hence the power consumption). An accelerometer or passive movement detector could be used to detect movement of any type, in response to which the neural response measurement sample rate may be adjusted up or down, so that the response is optimally adjusted with the minimum number of neural response samples acquired.
Employing neural response measurement in a neuromodulation system leads to a variety of available mechanisms for improving the therapeutic outcome of SCS implantees. Discussed below are various control algorithms based on neural response feedback signals. It should be noted that all of these feedback mechanisms may be enabled only when movement is detected, since this is when the stimulus needs to be updated to optimise the pain relief. Enabling feedback control only when movement is detected may also lower the overall power consumption of the implant. Detection of movement may be achieved in a number of ways, including: monitoring via ball-in-tube type detectors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.
In order to maintain a constant level of analgesia, it is desirable to recruit enough of the appropriate dorsal column fibres, while avoiding recruitment at levels or in areas associated with side effects. Control of recruitment can be achieved by varying any one of several parameters, such as current or pulse-width. However, when modulating a single parameter, patient discomfort can limit the range of conditions under which recruitment can be held constant. For example, as current increases, fibres lateral to the electrode are more likely to be recruited. Thus, instead of controlling one parameter at a time, it is possible to control several. The choice of parameters is made to minimise discomfort and stimulation energy for any desired stimulation command (up to some programmed limit).
The simplest implementation is a piecewise specification of stimulation parameters from the command. For example, if we specify that the injected charge should be proportional to the command value:
[[FIGURE−PW/I vs. Command]]
The Command generated is a value which is proportional to the error in the recorded response (ie the difference between the set point and the measured response). The parameter selector can select any parameter to adjust (pulse width, current level, frequency of burst etc). One simple option is to make the charge delivered proportional to the command value which reduces the feedback loop to a simple proportional control loop.
The optimal command-to-stimulus mapping depends on factors including spinal geometry, control loop parameters and desired performance, and the psychophysical requirements of the individual patient. Thus it may be necessary to select between different parameter-selection algorithms depending on external factors, such as movement detection or patient controls.
Tt−Tf=Rt
Tf−Ts
Then for any subsequent stimuli
Tt=Ri*(Ts−Tf)+Tf
The stimulus which is used to probe the slow response presence or absence is output at frequency which is not annoying to the recipient. The fast (<2 ms) response recorded is due to activation of Aβ fibres in the spinal cord, and the slow response observed accompanies unwanted, uncomfortable or undesirable stimulation (e.g. muscle fibre activation). Thus, the stimulus level should ideally be set between the fast response threshold value (Tf in
An algorithm can be defined which is based on the presence or absence of Aβ and slow responses, as follows:
1. A stimulus Sp (=Tf+ΔTs) targeted to be less than the therapeutic stimulus but greater than threshold Tf is used to evoke a response.
2. A stimulus SL (=Ts−ΔTs) targeted to be greater than the therapeutic stimulus but less than that required to elicit a slow response is output
3. The therapy setting is calculated as a ratio of the difference between the thresholds Tf and Ts.
Embodiments of the present invention may further give an estimation of constant neural recruitment. The electrically evoked compound action potential is a measure of the level of excitation of nerve tissue being excited. The ECAP is the result of the summation of single fibre action potentials from a large number of fibres. The ECAP magnitude depends on the number of fibres and their distance from the sensing electrode. Fibres which are far away from the sense electrode will contribute less to the ECAP due to the strength of the coupling between the sense electrode and the fibre.
Neuromodulation is used to describe the electrical stimulation of tissue in order to produce a therapeutic effect. Passing a current through the tissue and generating action potentials to produce the therapeutic outcome. The number and strength of action potentials in response to the current is not always proportional to current and depends on a number of factors:
There can be large shifts in the level of recruitment with changes in separation between electrode and tissue, indeed such shifts can take stimulation parameters from sub threshold to above the therapeutic benefit range. This occurs frequently with spinal cord stimulators where an electrode is implanted in the epidural space and the stimulation target is near the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. The separation between the electrode and the target tissue varies with changes in posture. To address this, embodiments of the present invention may measure the strength of the evoked response and use this as the feedback point for control of the stimulus levels. The measured ECAP potential is proportional to the level of neural recruitment and a scaling factor which relates to the separation (and intervening tissue properties) of the sense electrode from the neural elements. In order to generate a target value in order to perform the feedback control, the variation of the signal due to the separation from the electrode must be removed.
The present invention presents a number of methods by which to extract the level of recruitment of the underlying tissue, independent of the separation of the sense electrode. The evoked response recorded for the Aβ fibres from the spinal cord is illustrated in
A first embodiment for estimating recruitment in the presence of varying electrode-to-fibre distance d, is based on relative amplitudes found in measurements at two electrodes. The amplitude of the evoked response varies with the applied charge and the response can be measured on a number of different electrodes distant from the electrode where the stimulus is applied. The responses measured in the sheep spinal cord are shown in
The amplitude of the responses for electrodes which are more distant from the stimulus site do not increase as markedly with the stimulus current as the electrodes closer to the stimulus site. The distant electrodes are measuring the propagation of the action potential ascending (or descending the spinal cord) and aren't subject to any localized recruitment phenomena. At a given stimulus level above a critical value Asat the number of fibres close to the sense electrode which can be recorded are all recruited and increasing stimulation no longer causes an increase in the amplitude of the response.
The different sensitivities of the different regions of measurement can be used to estimate the target value for feedback loop control. Consider the responses at two different positions of the electrode relative to the stimulated tissue, in this case the spinal cord. The amplitude response curve in position 1 labelled p1 in
If a completely flat response above Ssat is assumed, then the scaling factor due to the shift in distance for this electrode is simply the ratios of the responses at the large electrode separations (Equation 1).
Re1p2=(Ss+As)Re1p1 Equation 1
The response measured is scaled by a factor SS which relates to the changed measurement sensitivity, and by a factor AS which relates to the change in the amplitude due to the change in the recruitment level. For the case when the amplitude at a distant electrode is weakly dependent on the stimulation current, then:
Re5p2=(Ss+As)Re5p1 Equation 2
and so
(Re1p2/Re1p1)−(Re5p2/Re5p1)=As Equation 3
Knowing As thus permits estimation of actual neural recruitment from the measured response, even in the presence of varying electrode-to-fibre distance d.
A second embodiment for estimating neural recruitment in the presence of varying electrode-to-fibre distance d, is based on a two point method. The evoked response measured on one electrode has an almost linear dependence on the applied current, in the operating region between threshold and saturation and for a given stimulation pulse width. The response changes (independent of pulse width) with applied charge. If we consider two response curves at two different postures P1 and P2, then they will have different amplitude and saturation point, which will depend on the separation of the electrode from the tissue in each respective posture.
For a fixed electrical activity in the spinal cord the effect of moving the sense electrode away will be to scale the response curve by the factor which relates to the separation. The electrical activity however changes because in this case the sense electrode and the stimulating electrode are both moving with respect to the spinal cord. Movement of the stimulating electrode away from the spinal cord has the effect of lowering the resultant induced electrical activity in the spinal cord because of a reduction in the field strength and this has the effect of shifting the threshold.
The equation of the respective line is simply:
r=Rs2p1+((Rs1p1−Rs2p1)/(S1−S2))*(s−S2) Equation 4
for P1, and
r=Rs2p2+((Rs1p2−Rs2p2)/(S1−S2))*(s−S2) Equation 5
for P2.
The strength of recruitment is not related directly to the response recorded, due to the influence of the displacement upon the sense electrode. However, the intercept of the line of equation 4 or 5 with the x axis approximates the threshold, i.e. the minimum stimulus at which a neural response arises. The threshold can then be used to establish the stimulus parameter control loop variable to respond to changing d.
Tp1=Rs2p1−((Rs1p1−Rs2p1)/(S1−S2))*S2 Equation 6
The threshold scales with the influence of the change in electric field as a result of the displacement. In order to achieve a constant level of recruitment the threshold estimate determined in this manner can be used to determine the target response signal for the control loop.
The stimulus intensity scaled by the threshold value corresponds to a psycho-physical percept of the paraesthesia. For the individual whose data is displayed in
Thus, electrically activated compound action potential can be used to predict the stimulation level required to achieve a constant psychophysical percept.
A further embodiment for estimating neural recruitment even in the presence of varying electrode-to-fibre distance d, is based on peak position within the measured neural response. The recruitment of a nerve fibre in an electric field is a probabilistic event. Increasing the electric field strength increases the probability of firing. The higher the field strength the more likely any one nerve will fire and the firing of those nerves will become more and more synchronised. The result of the synchronisation is a sharpening of the peak and shift of the peak closer toward the stimulus time. The recorded peak will have a shorter interval from the onset of stimulus to peak height for higher stimulation intensities. Peak position thus presents a signal feature which may be analysed to assess actual recruitment.
A further embodiment for estimating neural recruitment even in the presence of varying electrode-to-fibre distance d, is based on spectral characteristics of the measured neural response. As the distance d changes, the fibre-to-electrode transimpedance function shape changes, as can be understood by reference to the cable model of a myelinated axon, for convolutional modelling. A myelinated axon consists of a tube formed of active axonal membrane, sheathed in a layer of insulating myelin. This myelin sheath is interrupted at regular intervals, exposing the membrane to the external medium. These gaps, the nodes of Ranvier, occur at intervals of approximately 100 times the axon diameter, across many types of myelinated nerve. This physical structure permits analysis with a discrete cable model; the inside of the axon is assumed to be a homogeneous conductor, while the membrane ion channel dynamics can be modelled as a nonlinear, time-variant conductance across the membrane at the nodes of Ranvier
The change in shape of the fibre-to-electrode transimpedance function in response to a change in d has the effect of smearing the SCP out in time with increased distance, which also reduces its peak-to-peak amplitude. This time-domain change can be measured independently of amplitude, to obtain a direct estimate of distance variation.
The propagating action potential in a single fibre is related to a corresponding action current through the fibre's cell membrane. After the AP is initiated in the fibre, the change in potential at one point in the fibre causes ion channels in the nearby membrane to open and close, permitting the flow of a current which then changes the potential further along. In this way, the action current/potential propagate continuously along unmyelinated fibres (such as C fibres), and jump from node to node along myelinated fibres (such as A and A fibres). Action potentials propagating along many nerves in a bundle give rise to a measurable compound action potential (CAP). This measured potential is the sum of the effects of the individual action currents along each fibre; a strong current into the fibre is seen at the leading edge of the activation, while an out-ward current follows, as the fibre's membrane recovers. This may be modelled, for each point on the fibre, as experiencing a fixed action current waveform, delayed proportional to the point's distance from the site of initiation. These currents sum into a potential, due to the resistive nature of the tissues and fluids involved, and for simple cases, may be modelled as a simple volume conductor.
In this case, there is a function for the current at any time at any point along the fibre I(t,x), given the current under the activation site I(t,0)=I0(t) and the speed with which the activation propagates, v, this is given by:
I(t,x)=I0t−x/v
For a linear medium, there is also a transfer function F(x) from the current at any point along the fibre to the induced voltage on the measuring electrode V:
V(t)=Σ×F(x)I(t,x)
With suitable scaling, it can then be seen that the measured potential from a propagating action current in a single fibre is given by the convolution of I0 with F. Letting F′(x)=F (vx):
V(t)=Σ×F′(x)I0(t−x)=F′*I0
F in a simple volume conductor has a definition similar to
F(x)=1/(d2+x2)
where d is the fibre-electrode distance, and x is the position along the fibre (relative to the electrode).
Due to the convolution equivalence, we can see that F acts as a time-domain filter kernel applied to I; and since the shape, and hence spectral characteristics, change with d, the filter will exhibit different spectral characteristics at different distances. This recognition can be exploited by, for example, picking two frequencies which are prominent in the compound action potential. By examining the ratio of the selected frequencies, changes in electrode-to-cord distance can be measured, regardless of recruitment percentage.
One key benefit of adjusting programming parameters on the basis of neural response measurements is the ability to understand the relative position of the therapeutic stimulus in the amplitude growth curve. There are two distinct tasks required in the adjustment of program parameters for spinal cord stimulation systems and these are:
1) Matching location of paraesthesia to pain location, and
2) Achieving sufficient coverage such that the area of paraesthesia overlaps the area of pain.
Both these need to be achieved without side effects.
A situation where the therapeutic level is adjusted to position C in
An alternative way to address this is by stimulating at alternating locations. The choice to begin to spread the stimulus locations is based on the position of the stimulus current in the amplitude growth curve. A rule set can be developed to make those choices in an automated manner based on the neural response measurements. For instance, stimulation may be applied on alternating electrodes after the current reaches a point B.
Collection of programming data, paraesthesia coverage and neural response measurements can be used to derive a set of rules for an expert system to set up the ideal parameters for the system. Alternating or roving stimuli can be used to extend the coverage of paraesthesia. Alternating stimuli can be used with all stimuli output at the optimal rate (for example 40 Hz).
It will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that numerous variations and/or modifications may be made to the invention as shown in the specific embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention as broadly described. For example, embodiments described in the context of spinal cord stimulation may in some cases be applied to other forms of neural stimulation and it is to be understood that such other contexts are within the scope of the present invention. The present embodiments are, therefore, to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011901828 | May 2011 | AU | national |
| 2011901829 | May 2011 | AU | national |
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/031,749, filed on Sep. 24, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/846,069, filed on Dec. 18, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/844,929, filed on Sep. 3, 2015 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,872,990, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/117,586, filed on May 13, 2014 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,155,892 on Oct. 13, 2015, which is a U.S. National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000515, filed on May 11, 2012, which claims priority to Australian Provisional Patent Application No. AU2011901828 filed May 13, 2011 and Australian Provisional Patent Application No. AU2011901829 filed May 13, 2011, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3724467 | Avery et al. | Apr 1973 | A |
| 3736434 | Darrow | May 1973 | A |
| 3817254 | Maurer | Jun 1974 | A |
| 3898472 | Long | Aug 1975 | A |
| 4158196 | Crawford, Jr. | Jun 1979 | A |
| 4418695 | Buffet | Dec 1983 | A |
| 4474186 | Ledley et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4628934 | Pohndorf et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4807643 | Rosier | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4856525 | van den Honert | Aug 1989 | A |
| 5113859 | Funke | May 1992 | A |
| 5139020 | Koestner et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5143081 | Young et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5156154 | Valenta et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5172690 | Nappholz et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5184615 | Nappholz et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
| 5188106 | Nappholz et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
| 5215100 | Spitz | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5324311 | Acken | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5417719 | Hull et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5431693 | Schroeppel | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5458623 | Lu et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5476486 | Lu et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5497781 | Chen et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5638825 | Yamazaki et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5702429 | King et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5758651 | Nygard et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5776170 | Macdonald et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5785651 | Kuhn et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5792212 | Weijand et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5814092 | King | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5895416 | Barreras et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5913882 | King | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5999848 | Gord et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6020857 | Podger | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6027456 | Feler | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6038480 | Hrdlicka et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6066163 | John | May 2000 | A |
| 6114164 | Dennis et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6144881 | Hemming et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6157861 | Faltys et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6212431 | Hahn et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6246912 | Sluijter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6381496 | Meadows et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6449512 | Boveja | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6463328 | John | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473649 | Gryzwa et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473653 | Schallhorn et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6493576 | Dankwart-Eder | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6516227 | Meadows et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6522932 | Kuzma | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6600955 | Zierhofer et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6658293 | Vonk et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6675046 | Holsheimer | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6782292 | Whitehurst | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6895280 | Meadows et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6898582 | Lange et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6909917 | Woods et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 7089059 | Pless | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7171261 | Litvak et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7177675 | Suffin et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7206640 | Overstreet | Apr 2007 | B1 |
| 7231254 | Dilorenzo et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7286876 | Yonce et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7412287 | Yonce et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7450992 | Cameron | Nov 2008 | B1 |
| 7634315 | Cholette | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7734340 | De Ridder | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7742810 | Moffitt | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7792584 | Van Oort et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818052 | Litvak et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7831305 | Gliner | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7835804 | Fridman et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7890182 | Parramon et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7894905 | Pless et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 8190251 | Molnar et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8224459 | Pianca et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
| 8239031 | Fried et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8249698 | Mugler et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8359102 | Thacker et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8417342 | Abell | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8454529 | Daly et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8494645 | Spitzer et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8515545 | Trier | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8538541 | Milojevic et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8588929 | Davis et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
| 8620459 | Gibson et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8655002 | Parker | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8670830 | Carlson et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8886323 | Wu et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8945216 | Parker et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 9044155 | Strahl | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9155892 | Parker et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9302112 | Bornzin et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9381356 | Parker et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
| 9386934 | Parker et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
| 9566439 | Single et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
| 9872990 | Parker et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9974455 | Parker et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
| 10206596 | Single et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
| 10278600 | Parker et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
| 10368762 | Single | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10426409 | Single | Oct 2019 | B2 |
| 10500399 | Single | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 10568559 | Parker et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
| 10588524 | Single et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10588698 | Parker et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
| 10632307 | Parker | Apr 2020 | B2 |
| 10842996 | Baru et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
| 10849525 | Parker et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 10894158 | Parker | Jan 2021 | B2 |
| 10918872 | Parker et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
| 11006846 | Parker et al. | May 2021 | B2 |
| 11006857 | Parker | May 2021 | B2 |
| 11045129 | Parker et al. | Jun 2021 | B2 |
| 20020055688 | Katims | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020099419 | Ayal et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020193670 | Garfield et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030032889 | Wells | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030045909 | Gross et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030139781 | Bradley et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030153959 | Thacker et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195580 | Bradley et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040088017 | Sharma et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040116978 | Bradley | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040122482 | Tung et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158298 | Gliner | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225211 | Gozani et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040254494 | Spokoyny et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050010265 | Baru Fassio | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050017190 | Eversmann et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050021104 | Dilorenzo | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050065427 | Magill | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050070982 | Heruth et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050075683 | Miesel et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050101878 | Daly et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050113877 | Giardiello et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050137670 | Christopherson et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050149154 | Cohen | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050192567 | Katims | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050203600 | Wallace | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209655 | Bradley et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216064 | Heruth et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050282149 | Kovacs et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060009820 | Royle et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020291 | Gozani | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060135998 | Libbus et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060195159 | Bradley et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212089 | Tass | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060217782 | Boveja et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060264752 | Rubinsky et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060287609 | Litvak et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070021800 | Bradley et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073354 | Knudson et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100378 | Maschino | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070178579 | Ross et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070185409 | Wu et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070208394 | King et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070225765 | King | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070225767 | Daly | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070244410 | Fridman et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250120 | Flach et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070255372 | Metzler et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282217 | McGinnis et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070287931 | Dilorenzo | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080021292 | Stypulkowski | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080051647 | Wu et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080064947 | Heruth et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080077191 | Morrell | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080097529 | Parramon et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080132964 | Cohen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080147155 | Swoyer | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080183076 | Witte et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208304 | Zdravkovic et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080234780 | Smith et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080275527 | Greenberg et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080294221 | Kilgore | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080300655 | Cholette | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080319508 | Botros et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090033486 | Costantino et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090058635 | Lalonde et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090082691 | Denison et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090149912 | Dacey et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157155 | Bradley | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090270957 | Pianca | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090287277 | Conn et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090299214 | Wu et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090306491 | Haggers | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100010388 | Panken et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100057159 | Lozano | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100058126 | Chang et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100069835 | Parker | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100069996 | Strahl | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070007 | Parker | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070008 | Parker | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100153 | Carlson et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100106231 | Torgerson | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114237 | Giftakis et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114258 | Donofrio et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100125313 | Lee et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100125314 | Bradley et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100145222 | Brunnett et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100152808 | Boggs | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100179626 | Pilarski | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100191307 | Fang et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100204748 | Lozano et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100222844 | Troosters et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100222858 | Meloy | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100249643 | Gozani et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100249867 | Wanasek | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100258342 | Parker | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262208 | Parker | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262214 | Robinson | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100280570 | Sturm et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100286748 | Midani et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100331604 | Okamoto et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100331926 | Lee et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004207 | Wallace et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110021943 | Lacour et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110028859 | Chian | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110040546 | Grber et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110077712 | Killian | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110087085 | Tsampazi et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110093042 | Torgerson et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110106100 | Bischoff | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110130802 | Libbus | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110184488 | De Ridder et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110204811 | Pollmann-retsch | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110224665 | Crosby et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110224749 | Ben-David et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110264165 | Molnar et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110270343 | Buschman et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307030 | John | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110313310 | Tomita | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110313483 | Hincapie et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120029377 | Polak | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120059275 | Fagin et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120101552 | Lazarewicz et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120101826 | Visser et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120109004 | Cadwell | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120109236 | Jacobson et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120155183 | Aritome | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120185020 | Simon et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120245481 | Blanco et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120253423 | Youn et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120277621 | Gerber et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120277823 | Gerber et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120310301 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130041449 | Cela et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130053722 | Carlson et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130060302 | Polefko et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130172774 | Crowder et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130268043 | Tasche et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130289661 | Griffith et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130289683 | Parker et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140046407 | Ben-Ezra et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140066803 | Choi | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140142447 | Takahashi et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140194771 | Parker et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140194772 | Single et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140236042 | Parker et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140236257 | Parker et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140243926 | Carcieri | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140243931 | Parker et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140249396 | Shacham-diamand et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140276195 | Papay et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140277250 | Su et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140277267 | Vansickle et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140288551 | Bharmi et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140288577 | Robinson et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140296737 | Parker et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140324118 | Simon et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140350634 | Grill et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140358024 | Nelson et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150018699 | Zeng et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150025597 | Surth et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150051637 | Osorio | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150126839 | Li et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150148869 | Dorvall et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150164354 | Parker et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150174396 | Fisher et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150238104 | Tass | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150238304 | Lamraoui | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150282725 | Single | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150313487 | Single | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150360031 | Bornzin et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150374999 | Parker et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160082265 | Moffitt et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160082268 | Hershey et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160101289 | Stolen et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160106980 | Surth et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160121124 | Johanek et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160129272 | Hou et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160144189 | Bakker et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160166164 | Obradovic et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160175594 | Min et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160287126 | Parker et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160287182 | Single | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160367808 | Simon et al. | Dec 2016 | A9 |
| 20170001017 | Parker et al. | Jan 2017 | A9 |
| 20170049345 | Single | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170071490 | Parker et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170135624 | Parker | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170173335 | Min et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170173341 | Johanek et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170216587 | Parker | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170361101 | Single | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180071513 | Weiss et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180104493 | Doan et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180110987 | Parker | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180117335 | Parker et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180132747 | Parker et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180132760 | Parker | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180133459 | Parker et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180228391 | Parker et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180228547 | Parker | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180229046 | Parker et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
| 20180256052 | Parker et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
| 20190030339 | Baru et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190125269 | Markovic et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190168000 | Laird-wah | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190216343 | Single et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190239768 | Karantonis et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190307341 | Parker et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20190357788 | Single | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20200029914 | Single | Jan 2020 | A1 |
| 20200129108 | Parker et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200155240 | Parker et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
| 20200215331 | Single | Jul 2020 | A1 |
| 20200282208 | Parker | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| 20210001133 | Williams et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210016091 | Parker et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
| 20210121696 | Parker et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
| 20210162214 | Parker | Jun 2021 | A1 |
| 20220023636 | Parker et al. | Jan 2022 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2013277009 | Jan 2016 | AU |
| 103648583 | Mar 2014 | CN |
| 103654762 | Mar 2014 | CN |
| 103842022 | Jun 2014 | CN |
| 104411360 | Mar 2015 | CN |
| 219084 | Apr 1987 | EP |
| 1244496 | Oct 2002 | EP |
| 0998958 | Aug 2005 | EP |
| 2019716 | Nov 2007 | EP |
| 2243510 | Oct 2010 | EP |
| 2443995 | Apr 2012 | EP |
| 2520327 | Nov 2012 | EP |
| 2707095 | Mar 2014 | EP |
| 3229893 | Oct 2017 | EP |
| 2006504494 | Feb 2006 | JP |
| 2009512505 | Mar 2009 | JP |
| 2012524629 | Oct 2012 | JP |
| 2013500779 | Jan 2013 | JP |
| 2013527784 | Jul 2013 | JP |
| 2013536044 | Sep 2013 | JP |
| 2014522261 | Sep 2014 | JP |
| 2014523261 | Sep 2014 | JP |
| WO 1983003191 | Sep 1983 | WO |
| WO 1993001863 | Feb 1993 | WO |
| WO 1996012383 | Apr 1996 | WO |
| WO 2000002623 | Jan 2000 | WO |
| WO 2002036003 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| WO 2002038031 | May 2002 | WO |
| WO 2002049500 | Jun 2002 | WO |
| WO 2002082982 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| WO 2003028521 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| WO 2003043690 | May 2003 | WO |
| WO 2003103484 | Dec 2003 | WO |
| WO 2004021885 | Mar 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004103455 | Dec 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005032656 | Apr 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005105202 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005122887 | Dec 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006091636 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO 2007050657 | May 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007064936 | Jun 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007127926 | Nov 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007130170 | Nov 2007 | WO |
| WO 2008004204 | Jan 2008 | WO |
| WO 2008049199 | May 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009002072 | Dec 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009002579 | Dec 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009010870 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009130515 | Oct 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009146427 | Dec 2009 | WO |
| WO 2010013170 | Feb 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010044989 | Apr 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010051392 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010051406 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010057046 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010124139 | Oct 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010138915 | Dec 2010 | WO |
| WO 2011011327 | Jan 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011014570 | Feb 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011017778 | Feb 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011066477 | Jun 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011066478 | Jun 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011112843 | Sep 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011119251 | Sep 2011 | WO |
| WO 2011159545 | Dec 2011 | WO |
| WO 2012027252 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012027791 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155183 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155184 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155185 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155187 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155188 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155189 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012155190 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012162349 | Nov 2012 | WO |
| WO 2013063111 | May 2013 | WO |
| WO 2013075171 | May 2013 | WO |
| WO 2014071445 | May 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014071446 | May 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014143577 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014150001 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| WO 2015070281 | May 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015074121 | May 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015109239 | Jul 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015143509 | Oct 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015168735 | Nov 2015 | WO |
| WO 2016011512 | Jan 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016048974 | Mar 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016059556 | Apr 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016077882 | May 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016090420 | Jun 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016090436 | Jun 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016115596 | Jul 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016161484 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016168798 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016191807 | Dec 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016191808 | Dec 2016 | WO |
| WO 2016191815 | Dec 2016 | WO |
| WO 2017053504 | Mar 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017173493 | Oct 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017210352 | Dec 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017219096 | Dec 2017 | WO |
| WO 2018119220 | Jun 2018 | WO |
| WO 2018160992 | Sep 2018 | WO |
| WO 2019204884 | Oct 2019 | WO |
| WO 2019231796 | Dec 2019 | WO |
| WO 2020082118 | Apr 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020082126 | Apr 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020087123 | Apr 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020082128 | May 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020087135 | May 2020 | WO |
| WO 2020124135 | Jun 2020 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050431, Search completed Aug. 16, 2016, dated Aug. 16, 2016, 11 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050439, Search completed Jul. 15, 2016, dated Jul. 15, 2016, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050296, Search completed Jul. 28, 2017, dated Jul. 28, 2017, 10 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050647, Search completed Sep. 29, 2017, dated Sep. 29, 2017, 13 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/050384, Search completed Jun. 25, 2019, dated Jun. 25, 2019, 15 pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051385, Search completed Mar. 24, 2020, dated Mar. 24, 2020, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050215, Search completed Jul. 30, 2015, dated Jul. 30, 2015, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2018/050278, Search completed Jun. 18, 2018, dated Jun. 18, 2018, 12 Pgs. |
| International Search Report for Australian Application 2011901829 Search Completed Feb. 6, 2012, dated Feb. 7, 2012, 3pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000511, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 17, 2012, dated May 18, 2012, 4 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000512, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jul. 10, 2012, dated Jul. 11, 2012, 4 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000516, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jul. 11, 2012, dated Jul. 12, 2012, 8 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051151, International Filing Date Oct. 22, 2019, Search Completed Feb. 24, 2020, dated Feb. 24, 2020, 9 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051160, International Filing Date Oct. 23, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 28, 2020, dated Jan. 28, 2020, 13 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000513, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 29, 2012, dated May 30, 2012, 5 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000515, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 21, 2012, dated Jun. 4, 2012, 5 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000517, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jun. 4, 2012, dated Jun. 6, 2012, 3 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000518, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jun. 8, 2012, dated Jun. 12, 2012, 4 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051163, International Filing Date Oct. 23, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 21, 2020, dated Jan. 31, 2020, 8 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051197, International Filing Date Oct. 30, 2019, Search Completed Jan. 21, 2020, dated Jan. 21, 2020, 15 pgs. |
| International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/051210, International Filing Date Nov. 2, 2019, Search Completed Feb. 4, 2020, dated Feb. 4, 2020, 10 pgs. |
| International Type Search Report for International Application No. AU 2015902393, Search completed May 16, 2016, dated May 16, 2016, 8 Pgs. |
| Jang et al., “Single Channel Signal Separation Using Time-Domain Basis Functions”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Jun. 2003, vol. 10, No. 6. |
| Jang et al., “A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Single-channel Source Separation”, Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003) 1365-1392. |
| Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2017-546830, dated Feb. 20, 2020, 5 pages with English translation. |
| Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2017-553090, dated Mar. 16, 2020, 12 pages with English translation. |
| Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2018-552138, dated Mar. 1, 2021, 7 pages with English translation. |
| Japanese Office Action for Application No. 2018-513699, dated Jun. 8, 2020, 7 pages with English translation. |
| Jeffrey et al., “A reliable method for intracranial electrode implantation and chronic electrical stimulation in the mouse brain”, BMC Neuroscience. Biomed Central. London, GB. vol. 14, No. 1, Aug. 6, 2013 (Aug. 6, 2013), pp. 1-8. |
| Jones et al., “Scaling of Electrode—Electrolyte Interface Model Parameters In Phosphate Buffered Saline”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2015, vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 441-448. |
| Kent et al., “Instrumentation to Record Evoked Potentials for Closed-Loop Control of Deep Brain Stimulation”, Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med Biol. Sol, Aug. 2012, pp. 6777-6780, doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.20113.6091671. |
| Kent et al., AR, “Recording evoked potentials during deep brain stimulation: development and validation of instrumentation to suppress the stimulus artefact”, J Neural Eng., Jun. 2012, vol. 9, No. 3, 036004, doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/9/3/036004. |
| Kim et al., “A Wavelet-Based Method for Action Potential Detection From Extracellular Neural Signal Recording With Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio”, IEEE Transactions On Biomedical Engineering, Aug. 2003, vol. 50, No. 8, pp. 999-1011. |
| Kim et al., “Cell Type-specific Changes of the Membrane Properties of Peripherally-axotomized Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain”, Neuroscience, vol. 86, No. 1, May 21, 1998, pp. 301-309, doi: 10.1016/S0306-4522(98)00022-0. |
| Kopelman et al., “Attempted Reversible Sympathetic Ganglion Block by An Implantable Neurostimulator”, Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Feb. 7, 2012, vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 605-609, doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivr137. |
| Krames et al., “Neuromodulation”, 1st Edition, Academic Press, 2009, pp. 540-541. |
| Krarup, Christian, “Compound sensory action potential in normal and pathological human nerves”, Muscle & Nerve, Apr. 2004, vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 465-483. |
| Krishnan et al., “Excitability Differences in Lower-Limb Motor Axons During and After Ischemia”, Muscle & nerve, vol. 31, No. 2 (2005), pp. 205-213. |
| Kumar et al., “Deep Brain Stimulation for Intractable Pain: a 15-year Experience”, Neurosurgery, Issue 40, No. 4, Apr. 1997, pp. 736-747. |
| Kumar et al., “Double-blind evaluation of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson's disease”, by the American Academy of Neurology, 51, No. 3, Sep. 1, 1998, pp. 850-855. |
| Kumar et al., “Globus Pallidus Deep Brain Stimulation for Generalized Dystonia: Clinical and PET Investigation”, Sep. 11, 1999, vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 871-874, doi: 10.1212/WNL.53.4.871. |
| Laird et al., “A Model of Evoked Potentials in Spinal Cord Stimulation”, IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society, 35th Annual Conference. Osaka, Japan: Jul. 3-7, 2013, pp. 6555-6558. |
| Laird-Wah, “Improving Spinal Cord Stimulation: Model-Based Approaches to Evoked Response Telemetry”, UNSW, Aug. 2015. |
| Lempka, Scott, “The Electrode-Tissue Interface During Recording and Stimulation In The Central Nervous System”, Thesis, 155 pgs., published May 2010. |
| Levy et al., “Incidence and Avoidance of Neurologic Complications with Paddle Type Spinal Cord Stimulation Leads”, Neuromodulation, Sep. 2011, vol. 14, No. 15, pp. 412-422, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00395.x. |
| Li, S. et al., “Resonant antidromic cortical circuit activation as a consequence of high-frequency subthalamic deep-brain stimulation”, J Neurophysiol. Dec. 2007; 98(6): 3525-37. First published Oct. 10, 2007, doi: 10.1152/jn.00808.2007. |
| Ma et al., “Similar Electrophysiological Changes in Axotomized and Neighboring Intact Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons”, Journal of Neurophysiology 89, No. 3 (Mar. 1, 2003): 1588-1602, doi: 10.1152/jn.00855.2002. |
| Macefield, “Spontaneous and Evoked Ectopic Discharges Recorded from Single Human Axons”, Muscle & Nerve 21, No. 4, Apr. 1998, pp. 461-468. |
| Mah Nam et al., “Measurement of the current-distance relationship using a novel refractory interaction technique”, J. Neural Eng. 6(2): 036005, published May 20, 2009, 22 pgs. |
| Mannan et al., “Identification and Removal of Physiological Artifacts From Electroencephalogram Signals: A Review”, IEEE Access, May 31, 2018, vol. 6, pp. 30630-30652, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2842082. |
| Markandey, Vishal, “ECG Implementation on the TMS320C5515 DSP Medical Development Kit (MOK)”, Texas Instruments Application Report Jun. 2010, 35 pgs. |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Compound Action Potential of the Frog Sciatic Nerve, Quantitative Physiology: Cells and Tissues. Fall, 1999, Retrieved from http://umech.mit.edu/freeman/6.021J/2001/lab.pdf on May 22, 2012. |
| Matzner et al., “Na+ Conductance and the Threshold for Repetitive Neuronal Firing”, Brain Research 597, No. 1 (Nov. 27, 1992): 92-98, doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(92)91509-D. |
| Mcgill, Kevin et al., “On the Nature and Elimination of Stimulus Artifact in Nerve Signals Evoked and Recorded Using Surface Electrodes”, IEEE Transactions On Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-29, No. 2, Feb. 1982, pp. 129-137. |
| Medtronic, RestoreSensor Neurostimulator, Retrieved from: http://web.archive.org/web/20150328092923/http://professional.medtronic.com:80/pt/neuro/scs/prod/restore-sensor/features-specifications/index.htm,, Capture Date Jul. 9, 2012, Printed on May 11, 2017. |
| Medtronic, Spinal Cord Stimulation, RestoreSensor Neurostimulator, Features and Specification: Specification, Printed Jun. 16, 2014, 2 pgs. |
| Medtronic, Spinal Cord Stimulation, RestoreSensor Neurostimulator, Features and Specification: Summary Printed Jun. 16, 2014, 1 pg. |
| Melzack et al., “Pain mechanisms: a new theory”, Science, New York, New York, vol. 150, No. 3699, Nov. 19, 1965, pp. 971-979. |
| Miles et al., “An Electrode for Prolonged Stimulation of the Brain”, Proc. 8th Meeting World Soc. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Part III, Zurich, 1981, Appl. Neurophysiol, 45, 1982, pp. 449-445. |
| Misawa et al., “Neuropathic Pain Is Associated with Increased Nodal Persistent Na(+) Currents in Human Diabetic Neuropathy”, Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System: JPNS, 14, No. 4 (Dec. 2009): 279-284. |
| Niazy et al., “Removal of FMRI environment artifacts from EEG data using optimal basis sets”, NeuroImage 28 (2005) 720-737. |
| Nordin et al., “Ectopic Sensory Discharges and Paresthesiae in Patients with Disorders of Peripheral Nerves, Dorsal Roots and Dorsal Columns”, Pain 20, No. 3 (Nov. 1984): 231-245, doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(84)90013-7. |
| North et al., “Prognostic value of psychological testing in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation: a prospective study”, Neurosurgery, Aug. 1, 1996, vol. 39, Issue 2, pp. 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199608000-00013. |
| Oakley et al., “Spinal Cord Stimulation: Mechanisms of Action”, Spine 27, No. 22, Nov. 15, 2002, pp. 2574-2583. |
| Oakley et al., “Transverse Tri polar Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results of an International Multicenter Study”, Neuromodulation, vol. 9, No. 3, 2006, pp. 192-203. |
| Obradovic et al., “Effect of pressure on the spinal cord during spinal cord stimulation in an animal model”, Poster, 18th Annual Meeting of the North American Neuromodulation Society, Dec. 11-14, 2014, Las Vegas. |
| Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 201680020725.4, dated Mar. 16, 2020, 8 pgs. |
| Oh et al., “Long-term hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation”, Neurosurgery, vol. 50, No. 6, Jun. 2002, pp. 1268-1274, discussion pp. 1274-1276. |
| Olin et al., “Postural Changes in Spinal Cord Stimulation Perceptual Thresholds”, Neuromodulation, vol. 1 , No. 4, 1998, pp. 171-175. |
| Opsommer, E. et al., “Determination of Nerve Conduction Velocity of C-fibres in Humans from Thermal Thresholds to Contact Heat (Thermode) and from Evoked Brain Potentials to Radiant Heat (CO2 Laser)”, Neurophysiologie Clinique 1999, vol. 29, pp. 411-422. |
| Orstavik, Kristin et al., “Pathological C-fibres in patients with a chronic painful condition”, Brain (2003), 126, 567-578. |
| Ouyang et al., “Compression Induces Acute Demyelination and Potassium Channel Exposure in Spinal Cord”, Journal of Neurotrauma 27, No. 6, Jun. 2010, 1109-1120, doi: 10.1089/neu.2010.1271. |
| Parker et al., “Closing the Loop in Neuromodulation Therapies: Spinal Cord Evoked Compound Action Potentials During Stimulation for Pain Management (230).”, 2011, In 15th Annual Meeting, North American Neuromodulation Society (p. 48). Presented at the North American Neuromodulation Society, Las Vegas. |
| Parker et al., “Compound Action Potentials Recorded in the Human Spinal Cord During Neurostimulation for Pain Relief”, Pain, vol. 153, 2012, pp. 593-601. |
| Parker et al., “Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials Recorded From the Sheep Spinal Cord”, Neuromodulation, vol. 16, 2013, pp. 295-303. |
| Partial European Search Report for European Application No. 16775966.1, Search completed Oct. 26, 2018, dated Nov. 6, 2018, 11 Pgs. |
| Penar et al., “Cortical Evoked Potentials Used for Placement of a Laminotomy Lead Array: A Case Report”, Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, accessed Apr. 19, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00352.x. |
| Peterson et al., “Stimulation artifact rejection in closed-loop, distributed neural interfaces”, ESSCIRC, 42nd European Solid-State Circuits Conference, Lausanne, 2016, pp. 233-235. |
| Rattay, “Analysis of Models for External Stimulation of Axons”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-33, No. 10, Oct. 1986, pp. 974-977. |
| Richter et al., “EMG and SSEP Monitoring During Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Journal of Neurosurgical Review 2011, Southern Academic Press, 1 (S1), 2011, pp. 61-63. |
| Ridder et al., “Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Limb and Back Pain”, World Neurosurgery, 2013, 9 pgs. |
| Rijkhoff et al., “Acute Animal Studies on the Use of Anodal Block to Reduce Urethral Resistance in Sacral Root Stimulation”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 2, No. 2, 1994. |
| Rijkhoff et al., “Orderly Recruitment of Motoneurons in an Acute Rabbit Model”, Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 20, No. 5, 1998. |
| Ross et al., “Improving Patient Experience with Spinal Cord Stimulation: Implications of Position-Related Changes in Neurostimulation”, Neuromodulation 2011; e-pub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00407.x 6 pages. |
| Roy, S. H. et al., “Effects of Electrode Location on Myoelectric Conduction Velocity and Median Frequency Estimates”, J. Appl. Physiol. 61 (4), 1986, pp. 1510-1517. |
| Sa Yen Ko et al., “Neuromodulation of evoked muscle potentials induced by epidural spinal-cord stimulation in paralyzed individuals”, Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 111, No. 5, 2014, pp. 1088-1099, First published Dec. 11, 2013. |
| Schmidt et al., “Gating of tactile input from the hand”, Exp Brain Res, 1990, 79, pp. 97-102. |
| Scott et al., “Compact Nonlinear Model of an Implantable Electrode Array for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS)”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2014, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 382-390. |
| Siegfried et al., “Bilateral Chronic Electrostimulation of Ventroposterolateral Pallidum: A New Therapeutic Approach for Alleviating all Parkinsonian Symptoms”, Neurosurgery, 35, No. 6, Dec. 1994, pp. 1126-1130. |
| Siegfried et al., “Intracerebral Electrode Implantation System”, Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 59, No. 2, Aug. 1983, pp. 356-3591. |
| Srinivasan, S, “Electrode/Electrolyte Interfaces: Structure and Kinetics of Charge Transfer”, Fuel Cells, 2006, Chapter 2, 67 Pages. |
| Stanslaski et al., “Design and Validation of a Fully Implantable, Chronic, Closed-Loop Neuromodulation Device With Concurrent Sensing and Stimulation”, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, Jul. 2012, Date of Publication: Jan. 23, 2012, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 410-421, DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2183617. |
| Struijk et al, “Paresthesia Thresholds in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Comparison of Theoretical Results with Clinical Data”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 1, No. 2, Jun. 1993, pp. 101-108. |
| Struijk et al., “Excitation of Dorsal Root Fibers in Spinal Cord Stimulation: a Theoretical Study”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Jul. 1993, vol. 40, No. 7, pp. 632-639. |
| Struijk, “The Extracellular Potential of a Myelinated Nerve Fiber in an Unbounded Medium and in Nerve Cuff Models”, Biophysical Journal vol. 72 Jun. 1997 2457-2469. |
| Sufka et al., “Gate Control Theory Reconsidered”, Brain and Mind, 3, No. 2, 2002, pp. 277-290. |
| Takahashi et al, “Classification of neuronal activities from tetrode recordings using independent component analysis”, Neurocomputing, (2002), vol. 49, Issues 1-4, 289-298. |
| Tamura et al., “Increased Nodal Persistent Na+ Currents in Human Neuropathy and Motor Neuron Disease Estimated by Latent Addition”, Clinical Neurophysiology 117, No. 11 (Nov. 2006): 2451-2458, doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.07.309. |
| Tasker, “Deep Brain Stimulation is Preferable to Thalamotomy for Tremor Suppression”, Surgical Neurology, 49, No. 2, 1998, pp. 145-153. |
| Taylor et al., “Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Prognostic Factors”, Spine, vol. 30, No. 1, 2004, pp. 152-160. |
| Texas Instruments, “Precision, Low Power Instrumentation Amplifiers”, Texas Instruments SBOS051B Oct. 1995, Revised Feb. 2005, 20 pgs. |
| Tomas et al., “Dorsal Root Entry Zone (DREZ) Localization Using Direct Spinal Cord Stimulation Can Improve Results of the DREZ Thermocoagulation Procedure for Intractable Pain Relief”, Pain, 2005, vol. 116, pp. 159-163. |
| Tronnier et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Implanted Neurostimulators: An In Vitro and In Vivo Study”, Jan. 1999, Neurosurgery, vol. 44(1), p. 118-125 (Year: 1999). |
| Tscherter et al., “Spatiotemporal Characterization of Rhythmic Activity in Rat Spinal Cord Slice Cultures”, European Journal of Neuroscience 14, No. 2 (2001), pp. 179-190. |
| Van Den Berg et al., “Nerve fiber size-related block of action currents by phenytoin in mammalian nerve”, Epilepsia, Nov. 1994, 35(6), pp. 1279-1288. |
| Villavicencio, Alan T. “Laminectomy versus Percutaneous Electrode Placement for Spinal Cord Stimulation,” Neurosurgery, vol. 46 (2), Feb. 2000, pp. 399-405. |
| Vleggeert et al., Lan Kamp, “Electrophysiology and morphometry of the Aalpha- and Abeta-fiber populations in the normal and regenerating rat sciatic nerve”, Experimental Neurology, vol. 187, No. 2, Jun. 1, 2004, Available online Apr. 2, 2004, pp. 337-349. |
| Woessner, “Blocking Out the Pain, Electric Nerve Block Treatments for Sciatic Neuritis”, Retrieved from: http://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/pain/spine/radiculopathy/blocking-outpain, Last updated Jan. 10, 2012. |
| Wolter et al., “Effects of sub-perception threshold spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain: A randomized controlled double-blind crossover study”, European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters, 2012, pp. 648-655. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000511, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 17, 2012, dated May 18, 2012, 5 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000512, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jul. 10, 2012, dated Jul. 11, 2012, 7 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000513, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 29, 2012, dated May 30, 2012, 10 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000515, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed May 21, 2012, dated Jun. 4, 2012, 4 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000516, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jul. 11, 2012, dated Jul. 12, 2012, 8 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000517, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jun. 4, 2012, dated Jun. 6, 2012, 5 pgs. |
| Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000518, International Filing Date May 11, 2012, Search Completed Jun. 8, 2012, dated Jun. 12, 2012, 10 pgs. |
| Wu et al., “Changes in Al3 Non-nociceptive Primary Sensory Neurons in a Rat Model of Osteoarthritis Pain”, Molecular Pain 6, No. 1 (Jul. 1, 2010): 37, doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-6-37. |
| Xie et al., “Functional Changes in Dorsal Root Ganglion Cells after Chronic Nerve Constriction in the Rat”, Journal of Neurophysiology 73, No. 5 (May 1, 1995): 1811-1820. |
| Xie et al., “Sinusoidal Time-Frequency Wavelet Family and its Application in Electrograstrographic Signal Analysis”, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 20, No. 3, Oct. 29, 1998, pp. 1450-1453. |
| Yamada et al., “Extraction and Analysis of the Single Motor Unit F-Wave of the Median Nerve”, EMG Methods for Evaluating Muscle and Nerve Function, InTech, 2012, 15 pgs. |
| Yearwood, T. L. , “Pulse Width Programming in Spinal Cord Stimulation: a Clinical Study”, Pain Physician. 2010. vol. 13, pp. 321-335. |
| Yingling et al., “Use of Antidromic Evoked Potentials in Placement of Dorsal Cord Disc Electrodes”, Applied Neurophysiology, 1986, vol. 49, pp. 36-41. |
| Yuan, S. et al. , “Recording monophasic action potentials using a platinumelectrode ablation catheter”, Europace. Oct. 2000; 2(4):312-319. |
| Zhang et al., “Automatic Artifact Removal from Electroencephalogram Data Based on A Priori Artifact Information”, BioMed research international. 2015. 720450. Aug. 25, 2015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/720450. |
| Zhou et al., “A High Input Impedance Low Noise Integrated Front-End Amplifier for Neural Monitoring”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 2016, vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 1079-1086. |
| Extended European Search Report in European Appln No. 18910394.8, dated Oct. 15, 2021, 8 pages. |
| “Advanced Pain Therapy using Neurostimulation for Chronic Pain”, Medtronic RestoreSensor clinical trial paper,Clinical summary, 2011-11, pp. 32. |
| “Battelle Neurotechnology—Moving Beyond The Limits In Neurotechnology”, Battelle, www.battelle.org, May 2014, pp. 1-2. |
| “Evoke 12C Percutaneous Leads”, Saluda Medical, specifications available in the “Evoke Surgical Guide”, version 6, http://www.saludamedical.com/manuals/, retrieved May 2017. |
| “Haptic technology”, Wikipedia, Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology, Last modified on Sep. 15, 2014, Printed on Sep. 15, 2014, 5 pgs. |
| “Implants for surgery, Cardiac pacemakers”, IS-1 standard ISO 5841-3-2000, Oct. 15, 2000. |
| “Neural Bypass Technology Enables Movement in Paralyzed Patient”, Posted on Jul. 29, 2014, 6 a.m. in Brain chips/computer interface, pp. 1-2. |
| “Spinal Cord Stimulation, About Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Medtronic, Retrieved from: http://professional.medtronic.com/pt/neuro/scs/edu/about/index.htm, Printed on Jun. 16, 2014, 2 pgs. |
| “Wide bandwidth BioAmplifier”, http://www.psylab.com/html/default_bioamp.htm, Printed Jan. 30, 2014, 1-3 pages. |
| Abra RD et al., “A time-frequency blindsignal separation methodapplicable to underdetermined mixtures of dependent sources”, Signal Processing 85 (2005) 1389-1403. |
| Alam et al., “Evaluation of optimal electrode configurations for epidural spinal cord stimulation in cervical spinal cord injured rats”, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, Mar. 2015, 28 pgs. |
| Al-Ani et al., “Automatic removal of high-amplitude stimulus artefact from neuronal signal recorded in the subthalamic nucleus”, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 198, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 135-146. |
| Andreassen, S. et al., “Muscle Fibre Conduction Velocity in Motor Units of the Human Anterior Tibial Muscle: a New Size Principle Parameter”, J. Physiol, (1987), 391, pp. 561-571. |
| Andy, “Parafascicular-Center Median Nuclei Stimulation for Intractable Pain and Dyskinesia (Painful-Dyskinesia)”, Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Appl. Neurophysiol., 43, No. 3-5, 1980, pp. 133-144. |
| Australian Examination Report for Application No. 2019283936, dated Apr. 1, 2021, 7 pages. |
| Bahm ER et al., “Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: I. Amplitude growth functions”, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, Clinical Neuroscience, 2012, vol. 205, pp. 202-211. |
| Bahm ER et al., “Effects of electrical pulse polarity shape on intra cochlear neural responses in humans: Triphasic pulses with cathodic second phase”, Hearing Research, 2013, vol. 306, pp. 123-130. |
| Balzer et al., “Localization of cervical and cervicomedullary stimulation leads for pain treatment using median nerve somatosensay evoked potential collision testing”, Journal of Neurosurgery, Jan. 2011, vol. 114, No. 1 : pp. 200-205. |
| Blum, A. R., “An Electronic System for Extracellular Neural Stimulation and Recording”, Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Aug. 2007, Retrieved from http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/16192 on Jan. 30, 2012. |
| Borg et al., “Conduction velocity and refractory period of single motor nerve fibres in antecedent poliomyelitis”, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, vol. 50, 1987, 443-446. |
| Bratta et al., “Orderly Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle Motor Units with Tri polar Nerve Cuff Electrode”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 36, No. 8, 1989. |
| Brown et al., “Impact of Deep Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Askinesia in Parkinson's Disease”, Annals of Neurology, 45, No. 4, 1999, pp. 473-488. |
| Budagavi et al., “Modelling of compound nerve action potentials health and disease”, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1992 14th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. vol. 6. IEEE, 1992. pp. 2600-2601. |
| Casey et al., “Separation of Mixed Audio Sources by Independent Subspace Analysis”, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (2001). |
| Celestin et al., “Pretreatment Psychosocial Variables as Predictors of Outcomes Following Lumbar Surgery and Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Literature Synthesis”, American Academy of Pain Medicine, 2009, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 639-653. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637. 2009. 00632 .X. |
| Cong et al., “A 32-channel modular bi-directional neural interface system with embedded DSP for closed-loop operation”, 40th European Solid State Circuits Conference (ESSCIRC), 2014, pp. 99-102. |
| Connolly et al., “Towards a platform for prototyping control systems for optimization of neuromodulation therapies”, IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS), 2015, pp. 1-4. |
| Coquery et al., “Backward and forward masking in the perception of cutaneous stimuli”, Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, vol. 13.No. 2, pp. 161-163. |
| Dawson, G. D., “The relative excitability and conduction velocity of sensory and motor nerve fibres in man”, Journal of Physiology, 1956, vol. 131 (2), pp. 436-451. |
| De Ri Oder et al., “Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation toward Paresthesia-Free Pain Suppression”, Nuerosurgery-online.com, May 2010, vol. 66, No. 8, pp. 986-990. |
| Delgado et al., “Measurement and interpretation of electrokinetic phenomena”, Pure Appl. Chem., 2005, vol. 77, No. 10, pp. 1753-1805. |
| Devergnas et al., A, “Cortical potentials evoked by deep brain stimulation in the subthalamic area”, Frontiers in System Neuroscience, May 13, 2011, vol. 5, Article 30, 2011, doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2011.00030. |
| Dijkstra, E. A., “Ultrasonic Distance Detection for a Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation System”, Proceedings—19th International Conference—IEEE/EMBS Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 1997, Chicago, IL., 4 pgs. |
| Dillier, N et al., “Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system”, Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol. 111, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 407-414. |
| Doi Ron et al., “Persistent Na+ Current Modifies Burst Discharge By Regulating Conditional Backpropagation of Dendritic Spikes”, Journal of Neurophysiology 89, No. 1 (Jan. 1, 2003): 324-337, doi: 10.1152/jn.00729.2002. |
| England et al., “Increased Numbers of Sodium Channels Form Along Demyelinated Axons”, Brain Research 548, No. 1-2 (May 10, 1991): 334-337. |
| European Search Report for European Application 12785619.3 Search Completed Oct. 13, 2014, dated Oct. 23, 2014, 7 pgs. |
| European Search Report for European Application 12785669.8 Search Completed Sep. 22, 2014, dated Sep. 29, 2014, 5 pgs. |
| European Search Report for European Application No. 15861444.6, Search completed Jul. 13, 2018, dated Jul. 23, 2018, 8 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for EP Application 12785483.4 completed Sep. 16, 2014, 7 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 11820923.8, report completed Dec. 9, 2013, report dated Dec. 17, 2013, 6 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 13852669.4, Search completed Jun. 8, 2016, dated Jun. 22, 2016, 09 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 14861553.7, Search completed Jun. 8, 2017, dated Jun. 19, 2017, 8 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 14863597.2, Search completed Jun. 6, 2017, dated Jun. 13, 2017, 9 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 15768956.3, Search completed Oct. 3, 2017, dated Oct. 10, 2017, 8 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 15789515.2, Search completed Dec. 4, 2017, dated Jan. 30, 2018, 7 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16739680.3, Search completed Jun. 1, 2018, dated Jun. 12, 2018, 9 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16802237.4, Search completed Dec. 11, 2018, dated Dec. 19, 2018, 9 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16802238.2, Search completed Oct. 17, 2018, dated Oct. 24, 2018, 8 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 17778477.4, report completed Nov. 12, 2019, dated Nov. 20, 2019, 7 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 17814341.8, report completed Dec. 12, 2019, report dated Jan. 2, 2020, 8 pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 13853514.1, Search completed Jun. 8, 2016, dated Jun. 15, 2016, 07 Pgs. |
| Fagius, J. et al., “Sympathetic Reflex Latencies and Conduction Velocities in Normal Man”, Journal of Neurological Sciences, 1980, vol. 47, pp. 433-448. |
| Falowski et al., “Spinal Cord Stimulation: an update”, Neurotherapeutics: The Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 5, No. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 86-99. |
| Fisher, “F-Waves—Physiology and Clinical Uses”, TheScientificWorldJournal, (2007) 7, pp. 144-160. |
| Fitzpatrick et al., “A Nerve Cuff Design for the Selective Activation and Blocking of Myelinated Nerve Fibers”, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 13, No. 2, 1991. |
| Franke et al., Felix, “An Online Spike Detection and Spike Classification Algorithm Capable of Instantaneous Resolution of Overlapping Spikes”, Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 2010, vol. 29, No. 1-2, pp. 127-148. |
| French et al., “Information transmission at 500 bits/s by action potentials in a mechanosensory neuron of the cockroach”, Neuroscience Letters, vol. 243, No. 1-3, Feb. 1, 1998, pp. 113-116. |
| Fuentes et al., “Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease”, Science, vol. 323, No. 5921, Mar. 20, 2009, pp. 1578-1582. |
| Gad et al., “Development of a multi-electrode array for spinal cord epidural stimulation to facilitate stepping and standing after a complete spinal cord injury in adult rats”, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2013, 10:2, 18 pgs., http://www.jneuroengrehab.com/content/10/1/2. |
| George et al., “Vagus nerve stimulation: a new tool for brain research and therapy”, Biological Psychiatry 47, No. 4, Feb. 15, 2000, pp. 287-295. |
| Gnadt et al., “Spectral Cancellation of Microstimulation Artifact for Simultaneous Neural Recording In Situ”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Oct. 2003, Date of Publication: Sep. 23, 2003, vol. 50, No. 10, pp. 1129-1135, DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2003.816077. |
| Goodall, E. V., “Modeling Study of Activation and Propagation delays During Stimulation of Peripheral Nerve Fibres with a Tripolar Cuff Electrode”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 3, No. 3, Sep. 1995, pp. 272-282. |
| Gorman et al., “ECAP Mapping of the Spinal Cord: Influence of Electrode Position on Al3 Recruitment”, (2012)., In 16th Annual Meeting. Presented at the North American Neuromodulation Society, Las Vegas, NV, 2 pgs. |
| Gorman et al., “Neural Recordings For Feedback Control Of Spinal Cord Stimulation: Reduction Of Paresthesia Variability.”, 2013, In International Neuromodulation Society 11th World Congress, presented at the International Neuromodulation Society 11th World Congress, Berlin, Germany, 2 pgs. |
| Hallstrom et al, “Distribution of lumbar spinal evoked potentials and their correlation with stimulation-induced paresthesiae”, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Mar.-Apr. 1991, vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 126-139, doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(91)90150-V. |
| Harper et al., A. A., “Conduction Velocity is Related to Morphological Cell Type in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurones”, J. Physiol, (1985), vol. 359, pp. 31-46. |
| He et al., “Perception threshold and electrode position for spinal cord stimulation”, Pain, vol. 59, (1994), pp. 55-63. |
| Herreras, “Local Field Potentials: Myths and Misunderstandings”, Frontiers in Neural Circuits, Dec. 15, 2016, vol. 10, Article 1101, 16 pgs., doi: 10.3389/fncir.2016.00101. |
| Holsheimer et al., “Optimum Electrode Geometry for Spinal Cord Stimulation: the Narrow Bipole and Tripole”, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 1997, vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 493-497. |
| Holsheimer et al., “Significance of the Spinal Cord Position in Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Acta Neurochir (1995) [Suppl] 64, pp. 119-124. |
| Holsheimer et al., “Spinal Geometry and Paresthesia Coverage in Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Neuromodulation, 1998, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 129-136. |
| Howell et al., “Evaluation of Intradural Stimulation Efficiency and Selectivity in a Computational Model of Spinal Cord Stimulation”, PLOS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114938, Dec. 23, 2014. |
| Huff, Terry B. et al., “Real-Time CARS Imaging Reveals a Calpain-Dependent Pathway for Paranodal Myelin Retraction during High-Frequency Stimulation”, PLoS One, vol. 6, Issue 3 (Mar. 3, 2011): e17176, 11 pgs., doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017176. |
| International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050296, dated Oct. 9, 2018, 7 Pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050647, dated Dec. 25, 2018, 8 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/050278, dated Sep. 29, 2020, 7 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2019/050384, dated Oct. 27, 2020, 8 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2011/001127, Report dated Mar. 5, 2013, 9 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000511, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 6 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000512, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 8 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000513, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 11 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000515, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 5 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000516, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 9 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000517, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 6 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/000518, Report dated Nov. 19, 2013, 11 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/001441, Report dated May 27, 2014, 10 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2013/001279, Report dated May 12, 2015, 6 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2013/001280, Report dated May 12, 2015, 6 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2014/001049, Report dated May 17, 2016, 5 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2014/050369, Report dated May 24, 2016, 8 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050135, Report dated Oct. 4, 2016, 13 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050215, Report dated Nov. 8, 2016, 4 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050422, Report dated Jan. 31, 2017, 8 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050724, Report dated May 23, 2017, 5 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050753, Report dated Jun. 13, 2017, 7 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050787, Report dated Jun. 13, 2017, 6 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050019, Report dated Jul. 25, 2017, 9 pgs. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050263, Report dated Oct. 10, 2017, 9 pgs. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2013/001280, Search Completed Jan. 16, 2014, dated Jan. 16, 2014, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report & Written Opinion for International Application PCT/AU2013/001279, Search Completed Jan. 9, 2014, dated Jan. 9, 2014, 9 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2011/001127, date completed Nov. 11, 2011, dated Nov. 15, 2011, 13 pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/001441, International Filing Date Nov. 23, 2012, Search Completed Feb. 26, 2013, dated Feb. 26, 2013, 14 pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2014/001049, Search completed Feb. 10, 2015, dated Feb. 10, 2015, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2014/050369, Search completed Feb. 20, 2015, dated Feb. 20, 2015, 14 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050135, Search completed Jun. 30, 2015, dated Jun. 30, 2015, 26 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050422, Search completed Oct. 14, 2015, dated Oct. 14, 2015, 17 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050724, Search completed May 9, 2016, dated May 9, 2016, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050753, Search completed Feb. 10, 2016, dated Feb. 10, 2016, 10 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050787, Search completed Mar. 16, 2016, dated Mar. 16, 2016, 10 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050019, Search completed May 4, 2016, dated May 4, 2016, 16Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050263, Search completed Nov. 16, 2016, dated Nov. 16, 2016, 8 Pgs. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2016/050430, Search completed Aug. 16, 2016, dated Aug. 16, 2016, 10 Pgs. |
| Extended European Search Report in European Appln No. 19793420.1, dated Dec. 17, 2021, 9 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20220023634 A1 | Jan 2022 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 17031749 | Sep 2020 | US |
| Child | 17478793 | US | |
| Parent | 15846069 | Dec 2017 | US |
| Child | 17031749 | US | |
| Parent | 14844929 | Sep 2015 | US |
| Child | 15846069 | US | |
| Parent | 14117586 | US | |
| Child | 14844929 | US |
