Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 117–125 | Cite as

The response of the myelinated nerve fiber to short duration biphasic stimulating currents

  • Christopher van den Honert
  • J. Thomas Mortimer


The response of a single Node of Ranvier to short duration biphasic stimulating currents was studied. Such stimulus patterns are known to be less likely to induce tissue damage than are longer monophasic stimuli. The presence of the anodic phase of a pulse pair was found to abolish excitation in cases where the cathodic phase alone was near threshold. In addition, peak twitch force from the tibialis anterior muscle of cat was found to be reduced by the use of biphasic motor nerve stimulation in place of monophasic stimulation. The abolition phenomenon could be eliminated by the introduction of a delay of 100 μs between the phases of a biphasic stimulus waveform.


Short Duration Nerve Fiber Tissue Damage Nerve Stimulation Single Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brummer, S. B. and M. Turner. Electrochemical aspects of neuromuscular stimulation.Functional Neuromuscular Stimulation: Report of a Workshop. Washington, D. C., National Academy of Sciences, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crago, P. E., P. H. Peckham, J. T. Mortimer and J. P. Van Der Meulen. The choice of pulse duration for chronic electrical stimulation via surface, nerve, and intramuscular electrodes.Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2:252–264, 1974.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dodge, F. A. and B. Frankenhaeuser. Membrane currents in isolated frog nerve fiber under voltage clamp conditions.J. Physiol. 143:76–90, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankenhaeuser, B. A method for recording resting and action potentials in the isolated myelinated nerve fiber of the frog.J. Physiol. 135:550–559, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frankenhaeuser, B., and A. F. Huxley. The action potential in the myelinated nerve fiber ofXenopus Laevis as computed on the basis of voltage clamp data.J. Physiol. 171:302–315, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankenhaeuser, B., and A. Persson. Voltage clamp experiments on the myelinated nerve fibre.Acta Physiol. Scand. 41(Suppl. 145):45–46, 1957.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mortimer, J. T., D. Kaufman, and U. Roessmann. Tissue reaction to intramuscular electrical stimulation. Presented in Atlantic City, at 58th FASEB Meeting. Abstract inFed. Proc. 33(No. 3, Part 1):312, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pudenz, Robert H., L. A. Bullara, Denise Dru, and M. D. Talhalla. Electrical stimulation of the brain II. Effects on the blood-brain barrier.Surg. Neurol. 4:265–270, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tasaki, I. Initiation and abolition of the action potential of a single node of Ranvier.J. Gen. Physiol. 40:859–885, 1957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pergamon Press Ltd. 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher van den Honert
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Thomas Mortimer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Neural Control Laboratory Department of Biomedical EngineeringCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland
  2. 2.Engineering Design CenterCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland

Personalised recommendations