Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025

Dorsal Column Steerability with Dual Parallel Leads using Dedicated Power Sources: A Computational Model
Published on: February 10, 2011
Frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue electrical properties in spinal cord stimulation models
Niranjan Khadka1, Boshuo Wang2, Marom Bikson1
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, New York, NY.
Background:
Models of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) simulate the electric fields (E-fields) generated in targeted tissues, which in turn can predict physiological and then behavioral outcomes. Notwithstanding increasing sophistication and use in optimizing therapy, SCS models typically calculate E-fields using the quasi-static approximation (QSA). QSA, as implemented in neuromodulation models, neglects the frequency dispersion of tissue conductivity, as well as propagation, capacitive, and inductive effects on the E-field. The reliability of QSA specifically for SCS has not been considered in detail, especially for higher-frequency SCS.
Methods:
We implemented a frequency-dependent finite element method (FEM) and solved a high-resolution RADO-SCS model with voltage-controlled (VC) and current-controlled (CC) stimulation to assess the impact of frequency-dependent conductivity (dispersion) and permittivity of spinal tissues on E-fields generated at three different spinal column locations (epidural space, spinal cord, and root) for frequencies spanning from 1 Hz to 10 MHz. Results were compared with predictions of QSA method, with varied conductivity values of purely resistive tissues. We further assessed the impact of frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties on spinal heating and distortion of the E-field waveform.
Results:
Tissue-specific electric properties around the energized leads and mode of stimulation-control impacted the magnitude of E-fields. In the spinal cord, the VC-SCS E-field generated with the frequency-dependent and capacitive properties was comparable to the QSA with 2X epidural fat conductivity, whereas the CC-SCS generated E-field was minimally impacted by frequency-dependent and capacitive properties up to 10 kHz. Spinal cord heating predicted by frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties was comparable to the QSA conditions with VC-SCS, whereas with CC-SCS, there was no impact of the frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties in spinal cord heating. E-field waveform distortion in the spinal cord, with CC-SCS at 1 kHz-specific electrical properties, was significant when fat capacitance (permittivity) was increased by 10X, whereas with VC-SCS, there was no effect of tissue capacitance.
Conclusion:
Regardless of the mode of SCS, QSA was still valid in predicting SCS-induced E-field and heating at the spinal tissues- across α and β dispersion region of spinal tissue's dielectric spectrum for VC-SCS and up to 10 kHz for CC-SCS.

