Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
August 16, 2005IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

In Vitro Comparison of the Charge-Injection Limits of Activated Iridium Oxide (AIROF) and Platinum-Iridium Microelectrodes

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

SCStuart F. CoganThe University of Texas at DallasPTPhilip R. TroykUniversity of Southern CaliforniaJEJ. EhrlichUniversity of Freiburg

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Cite This Study

Cogan et al. (2005) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a73404e629d045705c6758dhttps://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2005.851503
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Charge injection limits of activated iridium oxide electrodes with 0.2 ms pulses in bicarbonate buffered saline (neurological stimulation application)1988 · 221 citations
  2. 2Electrical stimulation with Pt electrodes. VIII. Electrochemically safe charge injection limits with 0.2 ms pulses (neuronal application)1990 · 362 citations
  3. 3Chronic neural stimulation with thin-film, iridium oxide electrodes2000 · 266 citations