Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation

S. L. Sim, R. J. Szalewski, L. J. Johnson, L. E. Akah, L. E. Shoemaker, Wallace B Thoreson, E. Margalit

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared response patterns and electrical receptive fields (ERF) of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) during epiretinal and subretinal electrical stimulation of isolated mouse retina. Retinas were stimulated with an array of 3200 independently controllable electrodes. Four response patterns were observed: a burst of activity immediately after stimulation (Type I cells, Vision Research (2008), 48, 1562-1568), delayed bursts beginning >25. ms after stimulation (Type II), a combination of both (Type III), and inhibition of ongoing spike activity. Type I responses were produced more often by epiretinal than subretinal stimulation whereas delayed and inhibitory responses were evoked more frequently by subretinal stimulation. Response latencies were significantly shorter with epiretinal than subretinal stimulation. These data suggest that subretinal stimulation is more effective at activating intraretinal circuits than epiretinal stimulation. There was no significant difference in charge threshold between subretinal and epiretinal configurations. ERFs were defined by the stimulating array surface area that successfully stimulated spikes in an RGC. ERFs were complex in shape, similar to receptive fields mapped with light. ERF areas were significantly smaller with subretinal than epiretinal stimulation. This may reflect the greater distance between stimulating electrodes and RGCs in the subretinal configuration. ERFs for immediate and delayed responses mapped within the same Type III cells differed in shape and size, consistent with different sites and mechanisms for generating these two response types.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)41-50
Number of pages10
JournalVision Research
Volume101
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Retinal Ganglion Cells
Retina
Electrodes
Electric Stimulation
Reaction Time
Light
Research

Keywords

  • Electrical stimulation
  • Extracellular recording
  • High resolution electrode array
  • Mouse
  • Retina
  • Retinal prosthesis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

Sim, S. L., Szalewski, R. J., Johnson, L. J., Akah, L. E., Shoemaker, L. E., Thoreson, W. B., & Margalit, E. (2014). Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation. Vision Research, 101, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.05.005

Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation. / Sim, S. L.; Szalewski, R. J.; Johnson, L. J.; Akah, L. E.; Shoemaker, L. E.; Thoreson, Wallace B; Margalit, E.

In: Vision Research, Vol. 101, 01.01.2014, p. 41-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sim, S. L. ; Szalewski, R. J. ; Johnson, L. J. ; Akah, L. E. ; Shoemaker, L. E. ; Thoreson, Wallace B ; Margalit, E. / Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation. In: Vision Research. 2014 ; Vol. 101. pp. 41-50.
@article{f7bd0ca355174abe808cece2eaa97993,
title = "Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation",
abstract = "We compared response patterns and electrical receptive fields (ERF) of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) during epiretinal and subretinal electrical stimulation of isolated mouse retina. Retinas were stimulated with an array of 3200 independently controllable electrodes. Four response patterns were observed: a burst of activity immediately after stimulation (Type I cells, Vision Research (2008), 48, 1562-1568), delayed bursts beginning >25. ms after stimulation (Type II), a combination of both (Type III), and inhibition of ongoing spike activity. Type I responses were produced more often by epiretinal than subretinal stimulation whereas delayed and inhibitory responses were evoked more frequently by subretinal stimulation. Response latencies were significantly shorter with epiretinal than subretinal stimulation. These data suggest that subretinal stimulation is more effective at activating intraretinal circuits than epiretinal stimulation. There was no significant difference in charge threshold between subretinal and epiretinal configurations. ERFs were defined by the stimulating array surface area that successfully stimulated spikes in an RGC. ERFs were complex in shape, similar to receptive fields mapped with light. ERF areas were significantly smaller with subretinal than epiretinal stimulation. This may reflect the greater distance between stimulating electrodes and RGCs in the subretinal configuration. ERFs for immediate and delayed responses mapped within the same Type III cells differed in shape and size, consistent with different sites and mechanisms for generating these two response types.",
keywords = "Electrical stimulation, Extracellular recording, High resolution electrode array, Mouse, Retina, Retinal prosthesis",
author = "Sim, {S. L.} and Szalewski, {R. J.} and Johnson, {L. J.} and Akah, {L. E.} and Shoemaker, {L. E.} and Thoreson, {Wallace B} and E. Margalit",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.visres.2014.05.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "41--50",
journal = "Vision Research",
issn = "0042-6989",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simultaneous recording of mouse retinal ganglion cells during epiretinal or subretinal stimulation

AU - Sim, S. L.

AU - Szalewski, R. J.

AU - Johnson, L. J.

AU - Akah, L. E.

AU - Shoemaker, L. E.

AU - Thoreson, Wallace B

AU - Margalit, E.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - We compared response patterns and electrical receptive fields (ERF) of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) during epiretinal and subretinal electrical stimulation of isolated mouse retina. Retinas were stimulated with an array of 3200 independently controllable electrodes. Four response patterns were observed: a burst of activity immediately after stimulation (Type I cells, Vision Research (2008), 48, 1562-1568), delayed bursts beginning >25. ms after stimulation (Type II), a combination of both (Type III), and inhibition of ongoing spike activity. Type I responses were produced more often by epiretinal than subretinal stimulation whereas delayed and inhibitory responses were evoked more frequently by subretinal stimulation. Response latencies were significantly shorter with epiretinal than subretinal stimulation. These data suggest that subretinal stimulation is more effective at activating intraretinal circuits than epiretinal stimulation. There was no significant difference in charge threshold between subretinal and epiretinal configurations. ERFs were defined by the stimulating array surface area that successfully stimulated spikes in an RGC. ERFs were complex in shape, similar to receptive fields mapped with light. ERF areas were significantly smaller with subretinal than epiretinal stimulation. This may reflect the greater distance between stimulating electrodes and RGCs in the subretinal configuration. ERFs for immediate and delayed responses mapped within the same Type III cells differed in shape and size, consistent with different sites and mechanisms for generating these two response types.

AB - We compared response patterns and electrical receptive fields (ERF) of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) during epiretinal and subretinal electrical stimulation of isolated mouse retina. Retinas were stimulated with an array of 3200 independently controllable electrodes. Four response patterns were observed: a burst of activity immediately after stimulation (Type I cells, Vision Research (2008), 48, 1562-1568), delayed bursts beginning >25. ms after stimulation (Type II), a combination of both (Type III), and inhibition of ongoing spike activity. Type I responses were produced more often by epiretinal than subretinal stimulation whereas delayed and inhibitory responses were evoked more frequently by subretinal stimulation. Response latencies were significantly shorter with epiretinal than subretinal stimulation. These data suggest that subretinal stimulation is more effective at activating intraretinal circuits than epiretinal stimulation. There was no significant difference in charge threshold between subretinal and epiretinal configurations. ERFs were defined by the stimulating array surface area that successfully stimulated spikes in an RGC. ERFs were complex in shape, similar to receptive fields mapped with light. ERF areas were significantly smaller with subretinal than epiretinal stimulation. This may reflect the greater distance between stimulating electrodes and RGCs in the subretinal configuration. ERFs for immediate and delayed responses mapped within the same Type III cells differed in shape and size, consistent with different sites and mechanisms for generating these two response types.

KW - Electrical stimulation

KW - Extracellular recording

KW - High resolution electrode array

KW - Mouse

KW - Retina

KW - Retinal prosthesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902282859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902282859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.visres.2014.05.005

DO - 10.1016/j.visres.2014.05.005

M3 - Article

VL - 101

SP - 41

EP - 50

JO - Vision Research

JF - Vision Research

SN - 0042-6989

ER -