{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014840989399293287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.586046511627907, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Difference in Network Effects of Pulsatile and Galvanic Stimulation

Biphasic pulsatile stimulation is the present standard for neural prosthetic use, and it is used to understand connectivity and functionality of the brain in brain mapping studies. While pulses have been shown to drive behavioral changes, such as biasing decision making, they have deficits. For example, cochlear implants restore hearing but lack the ability to restore pitch perception. Recent work shows that pulses produce artificial synchrony in networks of neurons and non-linear changes in firing rate with pulse amplitude. Studies also show galvanic stimulation, delivery of current for extended periods of time, produces more naturalistic behavioral responses than pulses. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and galvanic stimulation at the single neuron and network level while accurately modeling the effects of pulses on neurons for the first time. Results show pulses bias spike timing and make neurons more resistive to natural network inputs than galvanic stimulation at an equivalent current amplitude. Clinical Relevance- This establishes that pulsatile stimulation may disrupt natural spike timing and network-level interactions while certain parameterizations of galvanic stimulation avoid these effects and can drive network firing more naturally.