Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Muscle Stimulation Frequency01:22

Muscle Stimulation Frequency

2.5K
The contraction strength of muscles is regulated by motor neurons, which modulate the frequency of action potentials dispatched to the motor units based on the body's requirements. This process of varying the muscle stimulation frequency allows muscles to contract with a force that is precisely tailored to the needs of the moment, whether lifting a feather or a heavy box.
Wave summation
At low firing rates, motor neurons induce individual twitch contractions in muscle fibers. These twitches...
2.5K
Motor Unit Stimulation01:20

Motor Unit Stimulation

1.9K
When the neuron of a motor unit fires an action potential, it triggers a series of events, leading to a twitch contraction in the muscle fibers. The process of excitation-contraction coupling is crucial in relaying the action potential to the muscle fibers.
The latent period of contraction marks the onset of excitation-contraction coupling, when the action potential propagates across the sarcolemma, preparing the muscle fibers for contraction. As the fibers enter the contraction phase, the...
1.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Vestibular peripheral function remains robust after two weeks of continuous ionic direct current stimulation.

Journal of neural engineering·2026
Same author

Safety assessment of a soft metal-free silicone peripheral nerve cuff implanted in rat models of neuropathic and inflammatory pain.

The journal of pain·2026
Same author

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation attenuates neuroinflammation in a mouse model of traumatic brain injury.

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery·2025
Same author

Pulsatile electrical stimulation creates predictable, correctable disruptions in neural firing.

Nature communications·2024
Same author

Peripheral direct current reduces naturally evoked nociceptive activity at the spinal cord in rodent models of pain.

Journal of neural engineering·2024
Same author

Galvanic vs. pulsatile effects on decision-making networks: reshaping the neural activation landscape.

Journal of neural engineering·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 29, 2025

Non-Invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation Montages for Modulation of Human Motor Function
07:47

Non-Invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation Montages for Modulation of Human Motor Function

Published on: February 4, 2016

13.2K

Difference in Network Effects of Pulsatile and Galvanic Stimulation.

Paul Adkisson, Gene Y Fridman, Cynthia R Steinhardt

    Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference
    |September 10, 2022
    PubMed
    Summary

    Pulsatile stimulation, standard for neural prosthetics, disrupts natural brain activity. Galvanic stimulation offers a more natural alternative, improving neural network function and potentially enhancing brain-computer interfaces.

    More Related Videos

    Time-dependent Increase in the Network Response to the Stimulation of Neuronal Cell Cultures on Micro-electrode Arrays
    10:45

    Time-dependent Increase in the Network Response to the Stimulation of Neuronal Cell Cultures on Micro-electrode Arrays

    Published on: May 29, 2017

    10.0K
    Laboratory Administration of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation taVNS: Technique, Targeting, and Considerations
    06:31

    Laboratory Administration of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation taVNS: Technique, Targeting, and Considerations

    Published on: January 7, 2019

    39.3K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Aug 29, 2025

    Non-Invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation Montages for Modulation of Human Motor Function
    07:47

    Non-Invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation Montages for Modulation of Human Motor Function

    Published on: February 4, 2016

    13.2K
    Time-dependent Increase in the Network Response to the Stimulation of Neuronal Cell Cultures on Micro-electrode Arrays
    10:45

    Time-dependent Increase in the Network Response to the Stimulation of Neuronal Cell Cultures on Micro-electrode Arrays

    Published on: May 29, 2017

    10.0K
    Laboratory Administration of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation taVNS: Technique, Targeting, and Considerations
    06:31

    Laboratory Administration of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation taVNS: Technique, Targeting, and Considerations

    Published on: January 7, 2019

    39.3K

    Area of Science:

    • Neuroscience
    • Biomedical Engineering
    • Computational Neuroscience

    Background:

    • Biphasic pulsatile stimulation is standard for neural prosthetics and brain mapping.
    • Pulsatile stimulation can bias decision-making but has deficits, like artificial synchrony and non-linear firing rate changes.
    • Galvanic stimulation, delivering current over time, shows more naturalistic behavioral responses.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate differences between pulsatile and galvanic stimulation at single neuron and network levels.
    • To accurately model the effects of pulsatile stimulation on neurons for the first time.
    • To compare their impact on a winner-take-all decision-making network model.

    Main Methods:

    • Utilized a winner-take-all decision-making network model.
    • Simulated both biphasic pulsatile and galvanic stimulation.
    • Analyzed effects on spike timing, firing rate, and network input resistance.

    Main Results:

    • Pulsatile stimulation biases spike timing and increases neuronal resistance to natural inputs.
    • Galvanic stimulation, at equivalent current amplitudes, avoids these disruptive effects.
    • Galvanic stimulation drives network firing more naturally compared to pulsatile stimulation.

    Conclusions:

    • Pulsatile stimulation may disrupt natural neural spike timing and network interactions.
    • Certain galvanic stimulation parameters can avoid these disruptions and promote more natural network firing.
    • Galvanic stimulation presents a potentially more effective approach for neural prosthetics and brain stimulation therapies.