Fig. 10: The impact of various electrical stimulation systems on the neurotransmitter flow of Glu and GABA.

a Flowchart illustrating the experimental setup for electrical stimulation training and fluorescent probe detection. b Burst curve of Glu flow pre, during and post EEMS (10–20 Hz). c Fluorescence image of glutamatergic neurons labeled by iGluSnFR. Scale bar: 200 μm. The experiment was repeated 3 times independently with similar results. d Left: The relative change in the burst frequency of Glu flow during and post EEMS (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-EEMS (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). Middle: The relative change in the burst frequency of Glu flow during and post EES (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-EES (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). Right: The relative change in the burst frequency of Glu flow during and post MS (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-MS (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). e Burst curve of GABA flow before, during and after EEMS (10–20 Hz). f Fluorescence image of GABAergic neurons labeled by iGABASnFR. Scale bar: 200 μm. The experiment was repeated 3 times independently with similar results. g Left: The relative change in the burst frequency of GABA flow during and post EEMS (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-EEMS (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). Middle: The relative change in the burst frequency of GABA flow during and post EES (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-EES (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). Right: The relative change in the burst frequency of GABA flow during and post MS (10–20 Hz) was compared to that pre-MS (10–20 Hz) (n = 3 mice per group). Data represent the mean ± SEM, ns: no statistically significant difference, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, statistical analysis was carried out with a two-tailed paired t-test (d and g).