Neural measurement

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10368762
  • Patent Number
    10,368,762
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, May 5, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 6, 2019
    5 years ago
Abstract
Measuring a neural response to a stimulus comprises applying an electrical stimulus, then imposing a delay during which the stimulus electrodes are open circuited. During the delay, a neural response signal present at sense electrodes is measured with a measurement amplifier, while ensuring that an impedance between the sense electrodes is sufficiently large that a voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode. For example the input impedance to the measurement amplifier (ZIN) can be
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a 371 application of International Patent Application PCT/AU2015/050215, titled “IMPROVED NEURAL MEASUREMENT” and filed on 5 May 2015, which application claims the benefit of Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2014901639 filed 5 May 2014, which is incorporated herein by reference.


TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to measurement of neural activity, and in particular relates to measurement of a compound action potential or the like by using one or more electrodes implanted proximal to neural tissue.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

There are a range of circumstances in which it is desirable to obtain an electrical measurement of a compound action potential (CAP) evoked on a neural pathway by an electrical stimulus applied to the neural pathway. However, this can be a difficult task as 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. Electrode artefact usually results from the stimulus, and manifests as a decaying output of several millivolts throughout the time that the CAP occurs, presenting a significant obstacle to isolating the CAP of interest. As the neural response can be contemporaneous with the stimulus and/or the stimulus artefact, CAP measurements present a difficult challenge of amplifier design. In practice, many non-ideal aspects of a circuit lead to artefact, and as these mostly have a decaying exponential characteristic which can be of either positive or negative polarity, identification and elimination of sources of artefact can be laborious.


A number of approaches have been proposed for recording a CAP, including those of King (U.S. Pat. No. 5,913,882), Nygard (U.S. Pat. No. 5,758,651) and Daly (US Patent Application No. 2007/0225767).


Evoked responses are less difficult to detect when they appear later in time than the artifact, or when the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficiently high. The artifact is often restricted to a time of 1-2 ms after the stimulus and so, provided the neural response is detected after this time window, data can be obtained. This is the case in surgical monitoring where there are large distances between the stimulating and recording electrodes so that the propagation time from the stimulus site to the recording electrodes exceeds 2 ms. However, to characterize the responses from the dorsal columns for example, high stimulation currents and close proximity between electrodes are required, and therefore the measurement process must overcome contemporaneous artifact directly. Similar considerations can arise in deep brain stimulation where it can be desirable to stimulate a neural structure and immediately measure the response of that structure before the neural response propagates elsewhere.


Implanted electrical stimulus devices must also provide for charge recovery in order to ensure that transient currents delivered by stimuli do not lead to a net DC injection of charge into the tissue. One approach is to provide capacitors in series on each electrode, to prevent DC transfer to tissue, and such capacitors are often a requirement of regulatory bodies in order for an active implantable device to obtain market approval. Another arrangement as shown in FIG. 1 omits electrode capacitors, and instead provides switches to short circuit the stimulus and sense electrodes e1-e4 to each other to effect charge recovery between stimuli, and also provides a star network of resistors each of a value in the range of perhaps hundreds of kΩ, permanently connecting all electrodes together in order to equilibrate charge before the device is powered on, as shown in FIG. 1. However, the provision of electrode capacitors or a star network of resistors between the electrodes and the measurement amplifier can give rise to considerable effects of artefact which can interfere with attempts to measure small CAP signals.


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.


In this specification, a statement that an element may be “at least one of” a list of options is to be understood that the element may be any one of the listed options, or may be any combination of two or more of the listed options.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

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


applying an electrical stimulus from stimulus electrodes to neural tissue;


imposing a delay during which the stimulus electrodes are open circuited; and


during the delay, measuring a neural response signal present at sense electrodes with a measurement amplifier, while ensuring that an impedance between the sense electrodes is sufficiently large that a voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode.


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


a plurality of electrodes including one or more nominal stimulus electrodes and one or more nominal sense electrodes;


a stimulus source for providing a stimulus to be delivered from the one or more stimulus electrodes to neural tissue in order to evoke a neural response;


a measurement amplifier for amplifying a neural response signal sensed at the one or more sense electrodes, wherein an impedance between the sense electrodes is sufficiently large that a voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode; and


a control unit configured to control application of a stimulus to the neural tissue and measurement of an evoked neural response, the control unit configured to apply an electrical stimulus from the stimulus electrodes to neural tissue, the control unit further configured to impose a delay during which the stimulus electrodes are open circuited, and the control unit further configured to, during the delay, measure a neural response signal present at the sense electrodes with the measurement amplifier.


It is to be noted that different embodiments may involve stimuli of varying intensity or duration, electrodes of varying geometry and size, and/or a varying spatial separation between the stimulus electrodes and the sense electrode(s). The present invention recognises that knowledge of each such parameter in an evoked response measurement system enables a determination to be made as to an expected voltage which will arise on the sense electrode(s) as a result of the electrical characteristics of the stimulus delivered. In particular, modelling the interface between the sense electrode(s) and the tissue as including a constant phase element impedance, representing the electrode-electrolyte interface capacitance and tissue capacitance, and determining the impedance of the constant phase element for the physical parameters of the implant concerned, enables an appropriate lower limit to be placed on the impedance between the sense electrodes.


The impedance between the sense electrodes is preferably chosen to be sufficiently large that the voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which is no more than 15 times larger than the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode, more preferably is no more than 5 times larger than the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode, more preferably is no more than 2 times larger than the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode, even more preferably is no more than the same as the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode, and most preferably is no more than half of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode.


Some embodiments may utilise a differential measurement of the neural response by using two sense electrodes. In such embodiments the voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is to be understood to be the differential voltage arising between the two sense electrodes in response to the stimulus. The two sense electrodes for example may be mounted upon a single implanted electrode array. Alternative embodiments may undertake a single ended measurement utilising a single sense electrode and a distal reference electrode, and in such embodiments the voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is to be understood to be the differential voltage arising between the sense electrode and the reference electrode in response to the stimulus.


Some embodiments of the present invention further comprise a sense electrode capacitor provided in series between the sense electrode and the measurement amplifier, the sense electrode capacitor being chosen to have a capacitance which ensures that the voltage arising across the capacitor in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode. Such embodiments may thus enable improved prevention of DC charge injection to the tissue, while nevertheless retaining neural response measurement capability. In such embodiments, the stimulus electrodes may have corresponding capacitors in order to prevent DC charge injection, and also to permit electrical reconfiguration of each electrode as either a stimulus electrode or sense electrode, as required.


In some embodiments, the input impedance to the measurement amplifier (ZIN) is defined as:







Z
IN

>


Z
C




(


V

S





1


-

V

S





2



)


V
E







where

    • ZC is the constant phase element impedance of the or each sense electrode,
    • Vs1−Vs2 is the differential voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus, and
    • VE is the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode.


In such embodiments ZIN may comprise resistance and/or capacitance provided the above requirement is met. To give sufficient margin of VE over (VS1−VS2), in some embodiments ZIN may be limited by:

ZIN>A×ZC(Vs1−Vs2)/VE

A is a scalar provided to give sufficient margin of VE over (VS1−VS2), and may for example be in the range of 2-5. Alternatively, in embodiments utilising artefact compensation by way of exponential subtraction, A may be in the range of 0.5 or greater while still permitting assessment of the neural response and such embodiments are thus within the scope of the present invention.


Moreover, some embodiments may correlate the measurement against a filter template to extract the neural response from the measurement, in accordance with the teachings of Australian Provisional Patent Application No. 2013904519 by the present applicant, which is available as a published priority document for International Patent Publication No. WO 2015074121 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/020287182, the content of which is incorporated herein by reference, and in such embodiments A may be in the range of 0.067 or greater while still permitting assessment of the neural response and such embodiments are thus within the scope of the present invention.


The neural response measurement may in some embodiments be conducted in the manner taught by International Patent Publication No. WO2012155183, the content of which is incorporated herein by reference.


The method may further comprise obtaining neural measurements repeatedly over time and monitoring for changes. In response to detected changes some embodiments may provide feedback control of a therapy delivered to the patient, such as an electrical stimulus therapy and/or medication. Medication may be controlled automatically by an implanted drug pump or by producing a report for a physician to alter a prescription, for example.


In some embodiments, charge on the stimulus electrodes may be recovered by connecting the stimulus electrodes to each other by either a short circuit or via an impedance, before application of the stimulus and/or after measurement of the neural response.


In some embodiments, the measurement amplifier is kept connected to the sense electrodes throughout the stimulus and measurement. In such embodiments, the measurement amplifier is preferably a wide bandwidth amplifier with sufficient common mode range to avoid saturation by the stimulus. Alternatively, the amplifier may be used in an auto-zero state in which it can zero sufficiently quickly after the stimulus to track the neural response.





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 a prior art approach to neural response measurement;



FIG. 2 illustrates a neural response measurement system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;



FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of the invention utilising electrode capacitors;



FIG. 4 is another illustration of the embodiment of FIG. 3, showing the stimulus electrode shorting arrangement;



FIG. 5 is a simplified model of the driving circuitry of an implantable device and the surrounding tissue;



FIG. 6 is an illustrative equivalent circuit of the constant phase element at each electrode-tissue interface;



FIG. 7 is a plot produced by a simulation of the model of FIG. 5, showing the artifact arising after a stimulus in the presence of various values of amplifier input impedance, both capacitive and resistive;



FIG. 8 shows experimental data points, and simulation curves, of artefact arising from a stimulus when the amplifier input resistance and capacitance are varied;



FIG. 9 shows the RMS artifact contribution from resistance and capacitance respectively;



FIG. 10 shows artefact variation with resistance and capacitance; and



FIG. 11 shows RMS artefact variation with resistance and capacitance.





DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS


FIG. 2 illustrates a neural response measurement system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Two sense electrodes each having a constant phase element (CPE) impedance of ZC are used to detect a neural response signal Ve arising in neural tissue of an implant recipient. A stimulus applied by stimulus electrodes of the implant (shown in FIG. 4) gives rise to the neural response, but also causes stimulus voltages Vs1 and Vs2 to be present on the sense electrodes. An input impedance of Zin is present at each input of the differential measurement amplifier.


The input impedance required in this embodiment of the invention is determined by noting that noise input is comparable to stimulation voltage, and that the goal is for the stimulus to induce a voltage (Vs1−Vs2) on the CPE of the sense electrodes which is less than the evoked response VE. Consequently the desired input impedance is given by:







Z
IN

>


Z
C




(


V

S





1


-

V

S





2



)


V
E







In one embodiment, being a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) having electrodes with an area of 14 mm2, Zc=20Ω, (Vs1−Vs2)˜1V, Ve=50 uV, so that the above equation dictates that the minimum value of Zin is 400 kΩ. To give a sufficient margin of Ve over artefact, a more desirable value of Zin is larger, perhaps in the range 1-2 MΩ. In alternative embodiments such as a cochlear implant with electrode area of about 0.1 mm2, being a fraction of the area of an SCS electrode, the minimum required amplifier input impedance is many times higher; 8 MΩ or for sufficient margin more preferably 20 MΩ, illustrating the difficulties of the resistance values chosen in FIG. 1.



FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of the present invention utilising an ASIC amplifier having a very high value of Zin. Electrode capacitors are provided to block DC insertion to the tissue, the electrode capacitors having a value of Cin=5 pF. Since the ASIC amplifier of FIG. 3 automatically settles to zero during off periods there is no need for resistance to be added at the amplifier input.



FIG. 4 is another illustration of the embodiment of FIG. 2. Electrode capacitors are provided on all electrodes to block DC. The electrode capacitors can store their own charge which in turn can produce uncontrolled current on switch-on. Accordingly, the control module closes the switches to equilibrate the stimulus electrodes prior to each stimulus. The switches are closed only in short bursts so that the equilibration current does not rise to a level which is perceivable by the implant recipient. Similar embodiments may be provided having additional resistance and/or capacitance on the inputs of the measurement amplifier, so long as the input impedance obeys the equation above.


The importance of including the constant phase element model of the electrode-to-tissue interface in FIG. 2 for example arises from a simplified model of the driving circuitry and saline as shown in FIG. 5. The circuit consists of the spreading resistance, being a mesh of resistors that model the current through the bulk saline; the constant phase elements (CPE) where the saline meets the electrode metal; an excitation source having an output impedance including some stray capacitance; loading on each electrode and a ground connection. The saline bath has a bulk voltage point sBath. The saline bath is used to mimic tissue. In FIG. 5 a single-ended measurement can be made between electrodes e1 and e2, and a differential measurement can be made between e2 and e3.


An equivalent circuit of a CPE is shown in FIG. 6. It consists of a set of series RC networks connected in parallel. To adequately model a saline bath, the CPE might have 20-30 RC pairs, but the simplified version of FIG. 6 is shown for understanding. The RC pairs have time constants that change exponentially, in this case by a factor of sqrt(10), however the notable fact is that the time constants of each RC pair are different from all other RC pairs in the CPE. Following a stimulus, the output voltage of a CPE will change over time as charge redistributes between the capacitors, even though no net current is flowing in or out. This property is shared by a single parallel RC network, although a CPE has no R value that can be found at DC.


Unlike an RC network that shows a response characteristic of the circuit, the response of a CPE is dominated by the RC networks that have a similar time constant to that of the length of the stimulation. For example a SCS may have a stimulus pulse width in the range of 100-500 μs. This result is important for defining the apparent conductance of a capacitor as discussed below.


Following a stimulus, there are three mechanisms or sources of artifact that can be identified in the circuit of FIG. 5. For each of these mechanisms, the load and current source impedances are considered infinite unless otherwise noted:

    • The voltage on the CPE on electrode 1 changes. This can be seen in a single ended measurement e2-e1, or on the stimulating electrode e1. This is not seen in the differential measurement as this voltage is common mode between e2 and e3.
    • If the current source output impedance is finite, the change in the electrode 1 CPE voltage causes a current to flow through the spreading resistance. This appears differentially on electrodes e2 and e3. This only occurs due to the mesh nature of the spreading resistance; if modelled by a star resistor or a single string of resistors this will not be observed.
    • If the input impedance of either sense amplifier is finite, then during stimulus current will flow into this load. This will then settle.


The ability of the model of FIG. 5 to predict the voltage on e4 was experimentally tested. All stimulation used 4 mA 400 us biphasic pulses. These were used to give rise to an artifact large enough to resolve above noise, and with a voltage on the electrodes that could be digitized without anomaly. This stimulation level delivers 1.6 uC per stimulus, which is in the upper end of the range of charge required for comfort level stimulation in a SCS. Measurements were averaged over 99 iterations. As artefact can take many different profiles of either polarity, a single artefact measure was defined as being the integral of the V·t product of the signal, after resetting the DC value to a baseline.


In addition to experimental verification a simulation of FIG. 5 was conducted. FIG. 7 shows a simulation output showing the artifact over a selected range after the stimulus, in which the y-axis indicates RMS voltage×time, and the x-axis indicates admittance, with admittance of capacitances being calculated as Y=C·t, where t is the stimulus pulse width. Input impedance on the amplifier was selected to be either 330 pF, 1000 pF, 3300 pF, 330 kΩ, and 100 kΩ, giving rise to respective artefact waveforms 702, 704, 706, 708, 710. It is notable that capacitance and resistance give rise to artefact of opposite polarity. Although these are simple waveforms, in practice there can be several sources of artifact with different time-constants so that the actual artefact seen can be more complex than the simple monotic decreasing curves shown.



FIG. 8 shows both experimental data points and simulation curves, where the load resistance and capacitance are varied. The conductance of the capacitors, being their value divided by the length of each phase of the biphasic pulse, is a measure that has the same slope of artefact as for a resistor, and is thus preferred to using the entire length of the stimulus in FIGS. 8 to 11. The simulated line and the experimentally obtained data point groups having a positive slope in FIG. 8 show the effect of adding resistance, while the simulated line and the experimentally obtained data point groups having a negative slope show the effect of adding capacitance to the amplifier input impedance. The slopes of the capacitive and resistive lines are very similar for all electrodes, and closely match that of the simulation, indicating that the model of FIG. 5 is largely correct. The electrodes have different y-intercepts. Electrode 1 (the ‘r1.txt’ data points) has a peak artifact of 700 uV when a resistive load is reduced, which is a very large artefact and would certainly obscure a neural response signal of around 10 uV. In the absence of loading, artifact can be positive or negative. The y-intercept offsets are outside the control of the electronics, and must be handled by techniques such as filtering.


While the plot of FIG. 8 validates the simulation model, it also shows that there is a missing element that causes artifact in the absence of loading and causes the y-intercept offsets. The y-intercept offsets vary from one electrode to the next, and is perhaps the result of metallic contamination on each electrode surface creating a small galvanic cell and asymmetric behaviour for the phases of the biphasic pulse.



FIG. 9 shows the RMS contribution to simulated artefact from resistance and capacitance respectively.



FIG. 10 shows artefact variation when both resistance and capacitance are progressively changed.



FIG. 11 shows artefact variation with resistance and capacitance using the above described RMS method.


In FIGS. 10 and 11, the curve dips then rises, consistent with FIG. 8. As expected, due to the DC offset, the RMS method obscures the fundamental accuracy of the model.


From the simulation model, using the above described baseline definition of artifact and a 400 us pulse width, the sensitivity of artefact to resistance is 4.1×10−2 V·s per mho, and the sensitivity of artefact to capacitance is −2.85×10−2 Vs per mho. Thus for a load of R, and where the artifact is over a 1 ms interval, then the voltage is

V(r,t)=4.1×10−2/(R×t)


So for example, for an amplifier input resistance of 100 KΩ and a 1 ms artefact interval:

V(100 k,1 ms)=400 uV


Further, for a capacitive load, and where the artifact is over a 1 ms interval, then the voltage is:

V(C,t)=−7.14×101×C/t


So for example for a 1000 pF load, artifact over 1 ms, artifact=71.4 uV.


Using this artefact calculation method, the following table shows the artifact contributions of various stray impedances which might be present in a typical SCS.
















Artifact Contribution


Stray Impedance
Value
for 1 ms in uV

















Cable
350p
25


input impedance
 50k
820


Star load
270k
152


Output impedance of current source
135k
304


Reference inputs to amplifier
 83.3K
492









As can be seen in the above table, appropriate adjustment and control of such impedances present in the neural measurement system can allow considerable sources of artefact to be reduced and ease the task measuring a neural signal of the order of 10 uV.


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 method for measuring a neural response to a stimulus, the method comprising: applying an electrical stimulus from stimulus electrodes to neural tissue;imposing a delay during which the stimulus electrodes are open circuited; andduring the delay, measuring a neural response signal present at sense electrodes with a measurement amplifier, while ensuring that an impedance between the sense electrodes is sufficiently large that a voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode,
  • 2. The method of claim 1 wherein A=1.
  • 3. The method of claim 1 wherein A is greater than 0.067.
  • 4. The method of claim 3 wherein A is greater than 0.5.
  • 5. The method of claim 3 wherein A is greater than 1.
  • 6. The method of claim 3 wherein A is greater than 2.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a sense electrode capacitor in series between the sense electrode and the measurement amplifier, the sense electrode capacitor being chosen to have a capacitance which maintains a desired ZIN, for a selected duration of the electrical stimulus.
  • 8. The method of claim 1 further comprising obtaining neural measurements repeatedly over time and monitoring for changes in the neural response to a given stimulus.
  • 9. The method of claim 8 further comprising providing feedback control of a therapy delivered to the patient.
  • 10. An implantable device for measuring a neural response to a stimulus, the device comprising: a plurality of electrodes including one or more nominal stimulus electrodes and one or more nominal sense electrodes;a stimulus source for providing a stimulus to be delivered from the one or more stimulus electrodes to neural tissue in order to evoke a neural response;a measurement amplifier for amplifying a neural response signal sensed at the one or more sense electrodes, wherein an impedance between the sense electrodes is sufficiently large that a voltage arising on the sense electrode tissue interface in response to the stimulus is constrained to a level which permits assessment of the neural response voltage seen at the sense electrode,
  • 11. The device of claim 10 wherein A=1.
  • 12. The device of claim 10 wherein A is greater than 0.067.
  • 13. The device of claim 12 wherein A is greater than 0.5.
  • 14. The device of claim 12 wherein A is greater than 1.
  • 15. The device of claim 12 wherein A is greater than 2.
  • 16. The device of claim 10, further comprising a sense electrode capacitor in series between the or each sense electrode and the measurement amplifier, the or each sense electrode capacitor having a capacitance which maintains a desired ZIN, for a selected duration of the electrical stimulus.
Priority Claims (1)
Number Date Country Kind
2014901639 May 2014 AU national
PCT Information
Filing Document Filing Date Country Kind
PCT/AU2015/050215 5/5/2015 WO 00
Publishing Document Publishing Date Country Kind
WO2015/168735 11/12/2015 WO A
US Referenced Citations (235)
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 Den 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 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
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 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
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
8454529 Daly et al. Jun 2013 B2
8494645 Spitzer et al. 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
9872990 Parker et al. Jan 2018 B2
9974455 Parker et al. May 2018 B2
10206596 Single et al. Feb 2019 B2
20020055688 Katims May 2002 A1
20020099419 Ayal Shai 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
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 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
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 Kerry 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 et al. 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
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 et al. 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
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
20110087085 Tsampazis et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110093042 Torgerson et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110106100 Bischoff May 2011 A1
20110184488 De Ridder 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
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 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
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
20170071490 Parker et al. Mar 2017 A1
20170135624 Parker May 2017 A1
20170216587 Parker Aug 2017 A1
20170361101 Single Dec 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
Foreign Referenced Citations (73)
Number Date Country
0219084 Apr 1987 EP
0998958 Aug 2005 EP
2019716 Nov 2007 EP
2243510 Oct 2010 EP
2443995 Apr 2012 EP
2013527784 Jul 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
20040103455 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
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
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
WO 2012155183 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
20160011512 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 (190)
Entry
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.
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.
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. 13853514.1, Search completed Jun. 8, 2016, dated Jun. 15, 2016, 07 pgs.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2012/001441, Report dated May 27, 2014, 10 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 for Australian Application 2011901829 Search Completed Feb. 6, 2012, dated Feb. 7, 2012, 3 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.
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.
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.
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”, Wkipedia, 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050215, Search completed Jul. 30, 2015, dated Jul. 30, 2015, 8 Pgs.
“Wde bandwidth BioAmplifier”, http://www.psylab.com/html/default_bioamp.htm, 1-3 pages.
Lempka, Scott, “The Electrode-Tissue Interface During Recording and Stimulation in the Central Nervous System”, published May 2010.
Srinivasan, S, “Electrode/Electrolyte Interfaces: Structure and Kinetics of Charge Transfer”, Chapter 2, 67 Pages.
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/AU2015/050787, 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 Type Search Report for International Application No. AU 2015902393, Search completed May 16, 2016, dated May 16, 2016, 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. 15768956.3, Search completed Oct. 3, 2017, dated Oct. 10, 2017, 8 Pgs.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/AU2015/050753, Report dated Jun. 13, 2017, 7 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”, The Scientific World Journal, (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Harper, A. A. et al., “Conduction Velocity is Related to Morphological Cell Type in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurones”, J. Physiol, (1985), 359, pp. 31-46.
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.
Hui, 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.
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.
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 Wth 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 lschemia”, 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”, 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.
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.
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.
Markandey, Vishal, “ECG Implementation on the TMS320C5515 DSP Medical Development Kit (MDK)”, Texas Instruments Application Report Jun. 2010, 35 pgs.
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.
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 Surgace Electrodes”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-29, No. 2, Feb. 1982, pp. 129-137.
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 1982.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 platinum-electrode ablation catheter”, Europace. Oct. 2000; 2(4):312-319.
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 16739680.3, Search completed Jun. 1, 2018, dated Jun. 12, 2018, 9 Pgs.
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, vol. 10, Article 1101, 16 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 European Application No. 16802238.2, Search completed Oct. 17, 2018, dated Oct. 24, 2018, 8 Pgs.
International Preliminary Report for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050647, dated Dec. 25, 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.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/AU2017/050647, Search completed Sep. 29, 2017, dated Sep. 29, 2017, 13 Pgs.
Partial European Search Report for European Application No. 16775966.1, Search completed Oct. 26, 2018, dated Nov. 6, 2018, 11 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, 2003, vol. 50, No. 10, pp. 1129-1135.
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 2457-2469.
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).
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20170049345 A1 Feb 2017 US