ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Comparison of Physiological Brain Responses Evoked by Visual and Electrical Stimulation.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimal interphase delay in biphasic current pulses facilitates neural circuit activation induced by microstimulation in the mouse visual cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Noninvasive current stimulation (nCS or electrical stimulation) is a rapidly developing technique to support recovery from eye and brain dysfunctions. One of the most commonly used forms of nCS for treating the visual system is transcranial and transcorneal alternating current stimulation. This technique can exert neuromodulatory effects on the brain through eye stimulation. The mechanism of such stimulation is still poorly understood. Materials and Methods: To understand the pattern of activation evoked by nCS, a series of electrical impulses were delivered directly to the rat eye, alternating with the visual stimulus (VS), and subsequent responses were tested in the Superior colliculus and the primary visual cortex. Additionally, we tested two stimulation electrode placements, eyeball-eyeball, and eyeball-neck. Results: The results indicate that nCS and VS evoke different activation patterns in the recorded structures. In particular, the electrically evoked potentials are characterized by shorter latency and a different shape than the corresponding visually evoked potentials. The transcorneal alternating current stimulation (tACS) evoked shorter sinks and sources in all recorded structures than the visual stimulation. This suggests emerging of a different pattern of extracellular current flow in response to different stimulations. Conclusions: We demonstrate that the eye-eye paradigm of electrical stimulation elicited responses more similar to those evoked by VS. Individual transcorneal electrical impulses evoke a consistent pattern of neuronal activation across the visual system. This consistency is particularly promising for the development of neurotherapy aimed at restoring or improving vision, nCS can effectively activate visual circuits despite variations in stimulus delivery and shape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.