Method and apparatus for measurement of neural response

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10588524
  • Patent Number
    10,588,524
  • Date Filed
    Friday, May 11, 2012
    12 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, March 17, 2020
    4 years ago
Abstract
A device for measuring a neural response evoked by a stimulus. First and second sense electrodes are positioned at distinct locations along a neural pathway. A neural stimulus is applied and first and second recordings of a neural response evoked by the stimulus are obtained from the respective sense electrodes. The first recording and the second recording are compared to determine propagation properties of the evoked neural response.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a national stage of Application No. PCT/AU2012/000518 filed May 11, 2012, which claims the benefit of Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2011901824 filed May 13, 2011, Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2011901817 filed May 13, 2011, and Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2011901822 filed May 13, 2011, each of which are incorporated herein by reference.


TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to measurement of 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.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

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, to which velocity is roughly proportional, and for large myelinated fibres 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.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to a first aspect the present invention provides a method of measuring a neural response evoked by a stimulus, the method comprising:

    • applying a neural stimulus
    • making a first recording of a neural response evoked by the stimulus using a first sense electrode;
    • making a second recording of the neural response evoked by the stimulus using a second sense electrode spaced apart from the first electrode along a neural pathway of the neural response; and
    • comparing the first recording and the second recording to determine propagation properties of the evoked response.


According to a second aspect the present invention provides a device for measuring a neural response evoked by a stimulus, the device comprising:

    • at least first and second sense electrodes which are configured to be positioned at distinct locations along a neural pathway; and
    • a control unit configured to apply a neural stimulus, the control unit further configured to make a first recording of a neural response evoked by the stimulus using a first sense electrode, the control unit further configured to make a second recording of the neural response evoked by the stimulus using the second sense electrode; and the control unit further configured to compare the first recording and the second recording to determine propagation properties of the evoked neural response.


Some embodiments of the invention may provide for comparing the first recording and the second recording in order to gain information regarding a selected neural fibre class. In such embodiments, where the first and second electrode are a distance d apart and the selected neural fibre class has a conduction velocity of c, the first recording may be delayed by a time period t=d/c before the comparing. Alternatively a time delay tn for each nth sense electrode may be individually estimated. For example the delays tn may be estimated in advance by obtaining measurements of a response evoked by a high amplitude stimuli, and/or by averaging tn estimates over multiple stimulus cycles, to provide improved signal to noise ratio in the estimates of tn. The comparing may comprise summing together the first recording, delayed by t or tn as appropriate, and the second recording. Alternatively the comparing may comprise cross-correlating or convolving the delayed first recording with the second recording.


In some embodiments of the invention, more than two recordings may be obtained from respective electrodes spaced apart along the neural pathway, for example to further improve signal quality of the summation or convolution. Suitable delays applicable to the respective recordings can be determined from the electrode positions and conduction velocity of interest.


In further embodiments, the comparison may be performed for variable delays ti, to yield a “propagram” reflecting the comparison outcome with respect to ti. Should multiple fibre classes be recruited and making a contribution to the evoked neural response, such a propagram can be expected to have peaks at ti=d/ci, where the ci are the propagation velocity of each respective fibre class. The present invention thus permits the amplitude of each such peak in the propagram to be used as feedback to control a stimulus to provide desired selectivity of recruitment of each fibre class. Moreover, in such embodiments, the position of each peak ti in the propagram allows a measurement of the propagation velocity of each fibre class to be obtained, as ci=d/ti. The conduction velocity may be thus measured over time in order to diagnose a disease which affects the conduction velocity. Additionally or alternatively the position of a peak in the propagram may be used to obtain an estimate for the conduction velocity in order to estimate the delays tn. The propagram may be produced in response to a high intensity stimulus, and or an average of measurements of responses evoked by multiple stimuli, in order to improve signal to noise ratio and improve the estimate of peak position in the propagram.


Additionally or alternatively, in some embodiments of the invention the plurality of recordings of the evoked neural response may be compared and combined in order to yield a single combined measurement having improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which will tend to cancel decorrelated amplifier noise at each respective sense electrode. To compensate for neural response signal attenuation along the neural pathway, corresponding gain values may be applied to each of the plurality of measurements prior to combining. Moreover to compensate for dispersion of the neural signal along the neural pathway, corresponding phase terms may be applied to each of the plurality of measurements prior to the combining. Indeed, in general a filter matched to the expected response may be applied to each measurement obtained at each respective sense electrode, so that accumulating the respective filter output gives a measure of the amplitude of the response, with the benefit of coding gain.


In some embodiments, one sense electrode may be positioned caudally of the stimulus site, with another sense electrode being positioned rostrally of the stimulus site. In such embodiments, summing the signals sensed at each electrode will magnify the neural response signal while cancelling or attenuating stimulus artefact signals.


According to another aspect the present invention provides a computer program product comprising computer program code means to make a computer execute a procedure for measuring a neural response evoked by a stimulus, the computer program product comprising computer program code means for carrying out the method of the first aspect.


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 No. 2011901817 in the name of National ICT Australia Ltd entitled “Method and apparatus for measurement of neural response” from which the present application claims priority.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

An example of the invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:



FIG. 1 illustrates an implantable device suitable for implementing the present invention;



FIGS. 2a and 2b illustrate embodiments of the invention for selectively amplifying the neural response of a single fibre class;



FIG. 2C illustrates sensed waveform alignment and summation;



FIG. 3 illustrates another embodiment of the invention for amplifying the neural response and using a template filter;



FIG. 4 is a plot of a propagram illustrating the relationship between t and the output amplitude;



FIG. 5 illustrates another embodiment in which the first and second recordings are obtained from either side of a stimulus;



FIG. 6 illustrates the artefact cancellation effect of the measurement technique of FIG. 5; and



FIGS. 7 to 12 illustrate results obtained from experimental implementation of the concept shown in FIG. 2c.





DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS


FIG. 1 illustrates an implantable device 100 suitable for implementing the present invention. Device 100 comprises an implanted control unit 110, which controls application of neural stimuli, and controls a measurement process for obtaining a measurement of a neural response evoked by the stimuli from each of a plurality of electrodes. Device 100 further comprises an electrode array 120 consisting of a three by eight array of electrodes 122, each of which may be selectively used as either the stimulus electrode or sense electrode, or both.


During spinal cord stimulation, a current is injected into electrodes on the array near the spinal cord. This initiates action potentials in dorsal column nerve fibres underlying (i.e. immediately adjacent to) the point of stimulation. These action potentials then travel away from the point of initiation, in both directions.


Dorsal column nerve fibers enter the dorsal columns from the dorsal roots and then ascend to the brain. Spinal cord stimulation and measurement mainly interacts with those fibres that lie on or near the surface of the cord, which due to the anatomy of the cord are those fibres that have just entered the cord from a nearby dorsal root. These surface fibres are the most likely to be stimulated, and their action potentials are the largest contributors to evoked response measurements. For any given stimulation event, either a fibre is triggered, or it is not. As the amplitude of the evoked potential for a single fiber is invariant, the amplitude of the recorded compound action potential relates to how many fibers were triggered. The number of fibres triggered by a given stimulus can be controlled by varying the stimulation current. The action potential generated manifests itself as a current through the nerve's cell membrane at its nodes of Ranvier, which sets up a potential in the surrounding tissue. The amplitude of this potential field for a given fiber of fixed diameter is constant as it travels along. When measured at a point electrode near the fiber, the potential field has a characteristic time-varying 3-lobed shape, as the action potential first approaches and then recedes from the electrode.


An evoked SCP will usually contain the responses of different nerve fibre types. As discussed previously herein, the velocity of a neural response depends on the diameter of the fibre, and different fibre types have different diameters and different conduction velocities. Recorded signals of a single nerve response obtained from respective electrodes spaced apart along the array 120 are delayed with respect to each other due to the travelling nature of the action potentials. The amplitude also generally falls with distance away from the stimulus site, as a result of factors such as nerve fiber paths running deeper into the cord or into the dorsal roots away from the array, spatial effects whereby nearby bone structures and the like can vary the sensitivity of a recording electrode, and dispersion wherein different fibers have differences in propagation velocity, smearing the compound potential at greater distances from the stimulus.


The present embodiment recognises that these phenomena can be exploited to reduce the effect of electrical noise in an SCP measurement, and to preferentially amplify the response of a specific fibre class. The technique of this embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 2. The electrode array 202 is placed in the epidural space. In response to stimulation, an SCP 204 is induced, comprising the summed contributions of the various different fibre classes recruited. The SCP 204 travels along the neural pathway adjacent to the electrode array 202, with the contributions of the respective fibre classes travelling at respective velocities of c1, c2, c3 . . . . The distance between the electrodes in array 202 is d, and so the neural response components will respectively take a time of t=d/ci to pass between each electrode, where ci is the velocity of fibre class i. The signal from each electrode is amplified, and then delayed by an amount n*ti as shown, where n=0, 1, 2, 3 etc, and ti=d/ci. This creates a system that preferentially amplifies the SCP from action potentials travelling at the selected value of ci, compared to signals arising from noise or signals arising from recruited nerves having a different conduction velocity. Effectively, this approach exploits the travelling nature of the signal across a number of electrodes to distinguish the signal from noise, which does not travel in this manner. The amplitude of the combined signal 206 can then be detected and used in a feedback loop, or for other purposes. The system of FIG. 2 provides the further benefit that the delayed sum will improve overall SNR, as the signals will be correlated but amplifier noise will not. This benefit can be significant due to the typical noise problems in chip amplifiers used in implants.


The inverse delay ti (or each such delay when not equal between each pair of adjacent electrodes) may be assumed to be proportional to electrode spacing, or may be established individually. For example an initial calibration recording may be made using a high stimulus amplitude, where the CEP amplitude is far above the noise levels. Recordings from different electrodes in response to the calibration stimulus can then be cross-correlated, and the optimal lags established between pairs of electrodes.



FIG. 2b illustrates another embodiment similar to that of FIG. 2a, configured for selectively amplifying the neural response of a single fibre class. In this embodiment the electrode spacing is not constant, and so the delay applied at each respective electrode is di/ci, where the di respectively are the distance from that electrode to the right-most measurement electrode shown in FIG. 2b. The stimulus, shown as a bi-phasic current pulse, elicits a response in the spinal cord (not shown). This initiates a response in the spinal cord, which travels away from the stimulating electrodes. It will be observed that the neural response arrives at electrode C last, and at electrode B at time d1/c earlier, (where c is the propagation speed of the potential in the tissue, typically 80 m/s or 1 ms for 8 cm) and A at a time d2/c earlier.



FIG. 2c shows the way in which the delay elements of FIG. 2a or 2b can be used to align the sensed waveforms from the multiple electrodes, so that the waveforms' sum produces a larger output than that measured at any one electrode. Moreover, the signals received at the summing junction due to the SCP will be correlated, whereas the electrical noise from the amplifiers' front-end stages will not. Consequently, this will result in a net improvement of SNR of the summed output as compared to the individual amplifier outputs.



FIGS. 7 to 12 illustrate results obtained from experimental implementation of the concept shown in FIG. 2c. A linear array of 16 electrodes was established in a sheep's spine. Stimulus pulses were delivered with currents ranging from 100 μA to 600 μA using a tripolar configuration of electrodes at one end of the array, labelled electrodes 1 through 3. Evoked potentials were then recorded using electrodes 6 through 16. Each stimulus was delivered 200 times. The recordings used here consist of the differential voltages between successive electrodes.


For each electrode the recordings made in response to the stimulus at 600 μA were averaged, giving a low-noise signal. These are then upsampled by a factor of 10, in order to be able to estimate delays with sub-sample accuracy. The time of occurrence of the first negative peak was measured, and the difference between peak times of adjacent electrodes taken as the inter-electrode delay. In this way, for N electrodes, N−1 delays were obtained experimentally.


Recordings made at lower currents, shown in FIG. 7a, were then examined. Individual stimulus recordings were upsampled, and each recording channel was time-aligned with the other channels using the established delay values, to produce the time-shifted recordings shown in FIG. 7b. In this embodiment, the partially overlapped segments at the start and end of the recordings are discarded. In alternative embodiments these segments may be preserved but in further processing given less weight. The aligned recordings shown in FIG. 7b were then downsampled and averaged across the electrodes to obtain an aligned mean trace, as shown in FIG. 7c. The aligned mean trace can then be measured using any techniques normally applied to individual channels. A corresponding process was applied to the data of FIGS. 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a and 12a to derive FIGS. 8b, 9b, 10b, 11b and 12b, respectively, from which FIGS. 8c, 9c, 10c, 11c and 12c were respectively produced.



FIGS. 7-9 show data obtained by each electrode measuring a single response evoked by a single stimulus. In contrast, FIGS. 10-12 show data obtained by: application of 200 consecutive stimuli at the nominated amplitude; each electrode obtaining one recording of the response evoked by each of the 200 stimuli; and averaging the 200 recordings made by each electrode to obtain an averaged electrode recording, with the averaged electrode recordings being shown in FIGS. 10a, 11a and 12a.


When applying the present invention to individual recordings (“shots”), FIGS. 7-9 show that an evoked response can be assessed in the aligned mean trace when stimulating at 500 μA (FIG. 8c), even though the response is not strongly evident in any of the individual electrode recordings of FIG. 8a. For the recordings over 200 shots in FIGS. 10-12, the aligned mean trace elicits the onset of neural response at an even lower stimulus level, 400 μA (FIG. 11c). This is at the expense of some latency during the time period required to obtain the 200 shots. Nevertheless in both the single-shot and 200-shot approaches the aligned mean trace makes it possible to find responses which otherwise would be indistinguishable from the sources of background noise.


In a further embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the gain of each amplifier is different to that of the other amplifiers, to compensate for the drop in amplitude of the neural response as it propagates along the spinal cord. Further, filters M(i) are provided for each channel which compensate for expected dispersion and spectral variation in the neural response as it travels along the spinal cord between each respective sense electrode. The embodiment of FIG. 3 thus includes delay elements to align the time-of-arrival of the signals, but also matched filters that detect the expected amplitude and wave-shape of the signal at each point. The filters may be derived in advance based on measurements of a response evoked by a high intensity stimulus, and/or based on an average of multiple measurement cycles, in order to improve signal to noise ratio. The filter may also be defined in a manner to include the delay. The output, having a band-limited impulse shape, is then suitable for sampling and amplitude estimation, and can be used in a feedback loop. The time of the expected peak in the summation output is known from the geometry of the electrode array, and the (known) distance from the stimulating electrode to the sense electrode, or a delay tn for the nth sense electrode may be empirically estimated as discussed previously herein. Once again, this architecture of FIG. 3 improves the apparent SNR of the system compared to that of individual amplifiers, because the amplifier noise signals are not correlated. It will also improve SNR because the matched filter integrates the cross correlation of the signal and the filter impulse response (a template), providing coding gain. Preamble detection techniques may thus be applied in this and other embodiments of the invention.


If the delay t is varied while recording the amplitude of the SCP response, then the relationship between t and the output amplitude can be plotted as a “propagram”, as illustrated in FIG. 4. The propagram has peaks representing the responses of the different fibre classes. The amplitude and/or position of each peak can be used as the basis of a feedback loop, for example to control selectivity of the fibre class corresponding to that peak. More complex calculations may also be based on the peaks, such as the ratio of two peak amplitudes. The relationship between t and another SCP characteristic, such as response energy, could be similarly assessed.


The position of each peak in the propagram of FIG. 4 may also be used to measure propagation velocity of the respective fibre class.


As the signal propagates down a spinal cord it reduces in amplitude and disperses. Accordingly, the configuration of FIG. 2 may be refined to give the amplifier elements associated with each respective electrode different gain values and/or phase terms to mimic the attenuation and spreading. Moreover, filters may be introduced in each signal chain which are matched to the expected neural response sensed by that respective electrode, so that by accumulating the filter output a measure of the amplitude of the response can be obtained. Indeed, alternative embodiments may utilise a template generator, multiplier and accumulator bank instead of an ADC, giving simpler device fabrication and coding gain. Where it is known the time at which the signal starts, only a single accumulator would be required, although for unknown stimuli onset (for example in response to stimulation at the periphery) multiple accumulators may be required.


A further variant is shown in FIG. 5, in which the stimulus is presented by an electrode in the middle of an array, with sense electrodes and measurement amplifiers on either side. The signals obtained from the amplifiers are shown FIG. 6. The SCPs are of similar amplitude, and similar delay from the time of stimulus. There can be variations in amplitude due to certain effects, such as the distance of the electrode from the spinal cord, but the signals are largely the same. The electrode crosstalk and artefact are also shown. A “break mark” is used so that this single plot can show both the stimulus crosstalk (having amplitude of typically 1V) and the artefact (having amplitude typically of the order of 100 μV). Importantly, the respective stimulus crosstalk artefacts received at the sense electrodes are of opposite polarity, whereas the SCPs are of the same polarity. Consequently, in the output signal formed from the sum of the signals obtained from the electrodes on either side of the stimulus electrode, the crosstalk and artefact will cancel, while the SCP will sum.


While FIG. 5 shows the measurement electrodes being caudorostrally positioned relative to the stimulus electrode, it is to be noted that in an electrode array having 3 or more columns of electrodes, the measurement electrodes may be positioned laterally of the stimulus electrode(s). In another arrangement, a single sense electrode may be positioned between the stimulus electrodes whereby the stimulus artefact will cancel or be attenuated at that centrally positioned sense electrode.


These embodiments thus recognise that each node of Ranvier of a nerve fibre acts as a current source expressing an action current which is fixed for a given diameter. Each node's action current is delayed with respect to the previous node (closer to the initiation) but not otherwise different. The nodes each act as a point source within a volume conductor, and consequently the recording at each electrode can be considered to be a weighted summation of all action currents via a spatial transimpedance function. The recorded system can in turn be modelled as a line current source, along which an action current translates; and the variation in conduction velocities represents a dispersion of the action current in space (and consequently time). Thus, each subsequent electrode's recording is a delayed and dispersed version of a nearer electrode's recording. By applying an inverse delay to each electrode's signal, the travel delay and the weighted mean of the dispersion delays can be cancelled. These signals can then be averaged, which reduces synchronous and uncorrelated noise, while retaining the portion of the signal that represents the travelling character.


In alternative embodiments, delayed-sum recordings which allow sufficient improvements in signal to noise ratio may permit use of implanted or skin-surface electrodes. Delayed-sum recordings may be made for either evoked or non-evoked potentials. Delayed sum recordings can be made in any part of the body where a signal is known to propagate according to a known path.


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. The present embodiments are, therefore, to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive.

Claims
  • 1. A device for measuring a neural response evoked by a neural stimulus, the device comprising: at least a first sense electrode and a second sense electrode, the first and second sense electrodes being configured to be positioned at distinct locations along a neural pathway;a first measurement amplifier circuit configured to amplify signals from the first sense electrode;a second measurement amplifier circuit configured to amplify signals from the second sense electrode; anda control unit configured to apply the neural stimulus, the control unit further configured to make a first recording of a first compound action potential evoked by the neural stimulus, the first recording being made using the first measurement amplifier circuit and the first sense electrode, the control unit further configured to make, simultaneously with the first recording, a second recording of the first compound action potential evoked by the stimulus, the second recording being made using the second measurement amplifier circuit and the second sense electrode;wherein the first measurement amplifier circuit has a first transfer function and the second measurement amplifier circuit has a second transfer function, and wherein the second transfer function differs from the first transfer function in a manner corresponding to a variation in the first compound action potential as the first compound action potential travels between the first sense electrode and the second sense electrode.
  • 2. The device of claim 1, wherein a gain of the first transfer function of the first measurement amplifier circuit is different to a gain of the second transfer function of the second measurement amplifier circuit, in a manner which compensates for a drop in amplitude of the first compound action potential as the first compound action potential travels between the first sense electrode and the second sense electrode.
  • 3. The device of claim 1 wherein at least one of the first measurement amplifier circuit and the second measurement amplifier circuit further comprises a matched filter matched to a response and which compensates for dispersion and spectral variation in the first compound action potential as the first compound action potential travels between the first sense electrode and the second sense electrode.
  • 4. The device of claim 2, wherein at least one of the first measurement amplifier circuit and the second measurement amplifier circuit further comprises a matched filter which compensates for dispersion and spectral variation in the first compound action potential as the first compound action potential travels between the first sense electrode and the second sense electrode.
  • 5. The device of claim 1, where the first and second electrode are a distance d apart and a selected neural fibre class has a conduction velocity of c, and wherein the control unit is further configured to delay the first recording by a time period t=d/c to produce a delayed first recording and wherein the control unit is further configured to compare the delayed first recording with the second recording.
  • 6. The device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to sum together the first recording and the second recording.
  • 7. The device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to obtain more than two recordings from respective electrodes spaced apart along the neural pathway.
  • 8. The device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to apply phase terms to each of the first recording and the second recording, to compensate for dispersion of the first compound action potential along the neural pathway.
Priority Claims (3)
Number Date Country Kind
2011901817 May 2011 AU national
2011901822 May 2011 AU national
2011901824 May 2011 AU national
PCT Information
Filing Document Filing Date Country Kind 371c Date
PCT/AU2012/000518 5/11/2012 WO 00 11/12/2013
Publishing Document Publishing Date Country Kind
WO2012/155190 11/22/2012 WO A
US Referenced Citations (238)
Number Name Date Kind
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 et al. Aug 1989 A
5113859 Funke May 1992 A
5139020 Koestner et al. Aug 1992 A
5143081 Young et al. Sep 1992 A
5156154 Valenta, Jr. 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 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
5913882 King Jun 1999 A
5999848 Gord et al. Dec 1999 A
6020857 Podger Feb 2000 A
6027456 Feler et al. 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
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
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
6898582 Lange et al. May 2005 B2
7089059 Pless Aug 2006 B1
7171261 Litvak et al. Jan 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
7734340 De Jun 2010 B2
7742810 Moffitt Jun 2010 B2
7792584 Van et al. Sep 2010 B2
7818052 Litvak et al. Oct 2010 B2
7831305 Gliner Nov 2010 B2
7835804 Fridman et al. Nov 2010 B2
8190251 Molnar et al. May 2012 B2
8224459 Pianca et al. Jul 2012 B1
8239031 Fried et al. Aug 2012 B2
8359102 Thacker et al. Jan 2013 B2
8494645 Spitzer Jul 2013 B2
8588929 Davis et al. Nov 2013 B2
8670830 Carlson et al. Mar 2014 B2
8886323 Wu et al. Nov 2014 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
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
20020055688 Katims May 2002 A1
20020099419 Ayal et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020193670 Garfield Dec 2002 A1
20030032889 Wells Feb 2003 A1
20030045909 Gross et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030139781 Bradley et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030195580 Bradley et al. Oct 2003 A1
20040088017 Sharma et al. May 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 May 2005 A1
20050113877 Giardello 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
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
20070225767 Daly Sep 2007 A1
20070244410 Fridman 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
20080147155 Swoyer Jun 2008 A1
20080183076 Witte 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
20090033486 Costantino et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090082691 Denison Mar 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
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
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 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
20110087085 Tsampazis et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110093042 Torgerson et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110106100 Bischoff May 2011 A1
20110184488 De et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110204811 Pollmann-retsch Aug 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
20120101552 Lazarewicz et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120109236 Jacobson et al. May 2012 A1
20120253423 Youn et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120277621 Gerber et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120277823 Gerber et al. Nov 2012 A1
20130053722 Carlson et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130060302 Polefko et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130172774 Crowder et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130289661 Griffith et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130289683 Parker et al. Oct 2013 A1
20140066803 Choi Mar 2014 A1
20140142447 Takahashi et al. May 2014 A1
20140194771 Parker 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
20140276195 Papay et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140277250 Su 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
20140358024 Nelson et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150018699 Zeng et al. Jan 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 Dec 2015 A1
20160166164 Obradovic et al. Jun 2016 A1
20160287126 Parker et al. Oct 2016 A1
20160287182 Single Oct 2016 A1
20170001017 Parker et al. Jan 2017 A9
20170049345 Single Feb 2017 A1
20170071490 Parker et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170135624 Parker May 2017 A1
20170216587 Parker Aug 2017 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
20190168000 Laird-wah Jun 2019 A1
20190216343 Single et al. Jul 2019 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (77)
Number Date Country
0219084 Apr 1987 EP
0998958 Aug 2005 EP
2019716 Nov 2007 EP
2243510 Oct 2010 EP
2443995 Apr 2012 EP
2707095 Mar 2014 EP
2012524629 Oct 2012 JP
2013527784 Jul 2013 JP
2013536044 Sep 2013 JP
1983003191 Sep 1983 WO
1993001863 Feb 1993 WO
9612383 Apr 1996 WO
2000002623 Jan 2000 WO
2002036003 Nov 2001 WO
2002038031 May 2002 WO
2002049500 Jun 2002 WO
2003028521 Apr 2003 WO
2003043690 May 2003 WO
2003103484 Dec 2003 WO
2004021885 Mar 2004 WO
2004103455 Dec 2004 WO
2005032656 Apr 2005 WO
2005105202 Nov 2005 WO
2006091636 Aug 2006 WO
2007064936 Jun 2007 WO
2007127926 Nov 2007 WO
2007130170 Nov 2007 WO
2008004204 Jan 2008 WO
2008049199 May 2008 WO
2009002072 Dec 2008 WO
2009002579 Dec 2008 WO
2009010870 Jan 2009 WO
2009130515 Oct 2009 WO
WO 2009130515 Oct 2009 WO
2009146427 Dec 2009 WO
2010013170 Feb 2010 WO
2010044989 Apr 2010 WO
2010051392 May 2010 WO
2010057046 May 2010 WO
2010124139 Oct 2010 WO
2010138915 Dec 2010 WO
2011011327 Jan 2011 WO
2011066477 Jun 2011 WO
2011066478 Jun 2011 WO
2011112843 Sep 2011 WO
2011119251 Sep 2011 WO
2011159545 Dec 2011 WO
2012027252 Mar 2012 WO
2012027791 Mar 2012 WO
2012155183 Nov 2012 WO
2012155184 Nov 2012 WO
2012155185 Nov 2012 WO
2012155187 Nov 2012 WO
2012155188 Nov 2012 WO
2012155189 Nov 2012 WO
2012155190 Nov 2012 WO
2013063111 May 2013 WO
2013075171 May 2013 WO
2014071445 May 2014 WO
2014071446 May 2014 WO
2014143577 Sep 2014 WO
2015070281 May 2015 WO
2015074121 May 2015 WO
2015109239 Jul 2015 WO
2015143509 Oct 2015 WO
2015168735 Nov 2015 WO
2016011512 Jan 2016 WO
2016077882 May 2016 WO
2016090420 Jun 2016 WO
2016090436 Jun 2016 WO
2016115596 Jul 2016 WO
2016161484 Oct 2016 WO
2016191807 Dec 2016 WO
2016191808 Dec 2016 WO
2016191815 Dec 2016 WO
2017173493 Oct 2017 WO
2017219096 Dec 2017 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (194)
Entry
Fagius et al. (Sympathetic Reflex Latencies and Conduction Velocities in Normal Man; 1980).
Extended European Search Report for EP Application 12785483.4, completed Sep 16, 2014, 7 pgs.
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, 10 pgs.
European Search Report for European Application 12785619.3, Search Completed Oct. 13, 2014, dated Oct. 23, 2014, 7 pgs.
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/AU2012/000513, 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/AU2012/000516, 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/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.
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, 7 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.
European Search Report for European Application 12785669.8, Search Completed Sep. 22, 2014, dated Sep. 29, 2014, 5 pgs.
International Search Report for Australian Application 2011901829, Search Completed Feb. 6, 2012, dated Feb. 7, 2012, 3pgs.
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.
Blum, A. R., “An Electronic System for Extracelluar Neural Stimulation and Recording”, Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Aug. 2007, Retrieved from http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/16192 on Jan. 30, 2012.
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. Figs. 1-5; Table 1; p. 437 “Methods”; pp. 438-447 “Results.”
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. p. 324 section ‘Paraesthesia Coverage by Dermatome,’ p. 326 section ‘Total Paraesthesia Coverage’ and Figures 1 and 6-10.
Dillier, N et al., “Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system”, Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 111 (May 2002), No. 5, pp. 407-414. Abstract & Figures 2-3, 407-414.
Fagius, J. et al., “Sympathetic Reflex Latencies and Conduction Velocities in Normal Man”, Journal of Neurological Sciences, 1980. vol. 47, pp. 433-448.
Goodall, E. V., “Modeling Study of Activation and Propagation delays During Stimulation of Peripheral Nerve Fibres with a Tripolar Cuff Electrode”, IEEE Trans.Rehab.Eng. V. 3, pp. 272-282.
Harper, A. A., “Conduction Velocity is Related to Morphological Cell Type in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurones”, J. Physiol. (1985), 359, pp. 31-46.
Mahnam, A et al., “Measurement of the current-distance relationship using a novel refractory interaction technique”, J. Neural Eng. 6 (2009), pp. 036005 (published May 20, 2009) Abstract, Sec. 2.2 & Figure 2b, 036005.
Massachusetts Institute of Techn, “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.
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.
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.
Parker, J. L., “Compound Action Potentials Recorded in the Human Spinal Cord During Neurostimulation for Pain Relief”, Pain, vol. 153, 2012, pp. 593-601.
Roy, S. H., “Effects of Electrode Location on Myoelectric Conduction Velocity and Median Frequency Estimates”, J. Appl. Physiol. 61 (4), 1986, pp. 1510-1517.
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.
Yearwood, T. L., “Pulse Width Programming in Spinal Cord Stimulation: a Clinical Study”, Pain Physician. 2010. vol. 13, pp. 321-335.
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.
Orstavik, Kristin et al., “Pathological C-fibres in patients with a chronic painful condition”, Brain (2003), 126, 567-578.
Yuan, S. et al., “Recording monophasic action potentials using a platinum-electrode ablation catheter”, Europace. Oct. 2000; 2(4):312-9; Abstract.
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. 13853514.1, Search completed Jun. 8, 2016, dated Jun. 15, 2016, 07 Pgs.
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 15768956.3, Search completed Oct. 3, 2017, dated Oct. 10, 2017, 8 Pgs.
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”, Neurology, 53, No. 4, 1999, pp. 871-874.
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.
Lempka, Scott, “The Electrode-Tissue Interface During Recording and Stimulation in the Central Nervous System”, published on May 2010.
Levy et al., “Incidence and Avoidance of Neurologic Complications with Paddle Type Spinal Cord Stimulation Leads”, Neuromodulation 14(15), Sep. 2011, pp. 412-422.
Li et al., S., “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.
Markandey, Vishal, “ECG Implementation on the TMS320C5515 DSP Medical Development Kit (MDK)”, Texas Instruments Application Report Jun. 2010, 35 pgs.
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.
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.
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.
Oakley et al., “Spinal Cord Stimulation: Mechanisms of Action”, Spine 27, No. 22, Nov. 15, 2002, pp. 2574-2583.
Oakley et al., “Transverse Tripolar 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.
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.
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, 2012, vol. 153, pp. 593-601.
Parker et al., “Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials Recorded From the Sheep Spinal Cord”, Neuromodulation, vol. 16, 2013, pp. 295-303.
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.
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.
Ridder et al., “Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation toward Paresthesia-Free Pain Suppression”, May 2010, vol. 66, pp. 986-990.
Schmidt et al., “Gating of tactile input from the hand”, Exp Brain Res, 1990, 79, pp. 97-102.
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.
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.
Sufka et al., “Gate Control Theory Reconsidered”, Brain and Mind, 3, No. 2, 2002, pp. 277-290.
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.
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., Lankamp, “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-out-pain, 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.
Wu et al., “Changes in Aβ 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.
Yingling et al., “Use of Antidromic Evoked Potentials in Placement of Dorsal Cord Disc Electrodes”, Applied Neurophysiology, 1986, vol. 49, pp. 36-41.
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/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 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.
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.
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.
Fisher, “F-Waves—Physiology and Clinical Uses”, TheScientificWorldJournal, (2007) 7, pp. 144-160.
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.
Sayenko 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.
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.
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.
International Type Search Report for International Application No. AU 2015902393, Search completed May 16, 2016, dated May 16, 2016, 8 Pgs.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/001441, Report dated May 27, 2014, 10 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, 16 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.
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.
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.
“Advanced Pain Therapy using Neurostimulation for Chronic Pain”, Medtronic RestoreSensor clinical trial paper, Clinical summary, Nov. 2011, pp. 32.
“Battelle Neurotechnology—Moving Beyond the Limits in Neurotechnology”, Battelle, www.battelle.org, May 2014, pp. 1-2.
“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.
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.
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.
Brown et al., “Impact of Deep Brain Stimulation on Upper Limb Askinesia in Parkingson'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.
Coquery et al., “Backward and forward masking in the perception of cutaneous stimuli”, Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, vol. 13.No. 2, pp. 161-163.
Devergnas et al., A., “Cortical potentials evoked by deep brain stimulation in the subthalamic area”, Front Syst Neurosci. 2011; 5: 30. May 13, 2011. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2011.00030.
Doiron 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gorman et al., “ECAP Mapping of the Spinal Cord: Influence of Electrode Position on Aβ Recruitment”, (2012). In 16th Annual Meeting. Presented at the North American Neuromodulation Society, Las Vegas, NV.
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.
Hallstrom et al, “Distribution of lumbar spinal evoked potentials and their correlation with stimulation-induced paresthesiae”, (1991), Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology 80:126-139.
Holsheimer et al., “Optimum Electrode Geometry for Spinal Cord Stimulation: the Narrow Bipole and Tripole”, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 35, No. 5, 1997, pp. 493-497.
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.
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; 9 (3):036004, Apr. 18, 2012. 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, vol. 50. No. 8, Aug. 2003.
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 86, No. 1 (May 21, 1998): 301-309, doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(98)00022-0.
Krames et al., “Neuromodulation”, 1st Edition, Academic Press, 2009, p. 540-541.
Krarup, Christian, “Compound sensory action potential in normal and pathological human nerves”, Muscle & nerve, vol. 29, No. 4 (2004), 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.
European Search Report for European Application No. 15861444.6, Search completed Jul. 13, 2018, dated Jul. 23, 2018, 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.
Partial European Search Report for European Application No. 16775966.1, Search completed Oct. 26, 2018, dated Nov. 6, 2018, 11 Pgs.
He et al., “Perception threshold and electrode position for spinal cord stimulation”, Pain, 59 (1994) 55-63 pages.
Holsheimer et al., “Significance of the Spinal Cord Position in Spinal Cord Stimulation”, Acta Neurochir (1995) [Suppl] 64: 119-124 pages.
Holsheimer et al., “Spinal Geometry and Paresthesia Coverage in Spinal Cord Stimulation”, (1998 paper) 8 pages.
Olin et al., “Postural Changes in Spinal Cord Stimulation Perceptual Thresholds”, Neuromodulation, vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 171-175.
Rattay, “Analysis of Models for External Stimulation of Axons”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-33, No. 10, Oct. 1986, pp. 974-977.
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.
Struijk, “The Extracellular Potential of a Myelinated Nerve Fiber in an Unbounded Medium and in Nerve Cuff Models”, Biophysical Journal, vol. 72, Jun. 1997, pp. 2457-2469.
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16739680.3,.Search completed Jun. 1, 2018, dated Jun. 12, 2018, 9 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.
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.
Herreras, “Local Field Potentials: Myths and Misunderstandings”, Frontiers in Neural Circuits, Dec. 15, 2016, 16 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.
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 Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050647, Search completed Sep. 29, 2017, dated Sep. 29, 2017, 13 Pgs.
Bahmer 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.
Bahmer 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.
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.
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, p. 82.
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.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20140194772 A1 Jul 2014 US