Literature DB >> 21867801

The functional consequences of chronic, physiologically effective intracortical microstimulation.

Rebecca A Parker1, Tyler S Davis, Paul A House, Richard A Normann, Bradley Greger.   

Abstract

Many studies have demonstrated the ability of chronically implanted multielectrode arrays (MEAs) to extract information from the motor cortex of both humans and nonhuman primates. Similarly, many studies have shown the ability of intracortical microstimulation to impart information to the brain via a single or a few electrodes acutely implanted in sensory cortex of nonhuman primates, but relatively few microstimulation studies characterizing chronically implanted MEAs have been performed. Additionally, device and tissue damage have been reported at the levels of microstimulation used in these studies. Whether the damage resulting from microstimulation impairs the ability of MEAs to chronically produce physiological effects, however, has not been directly tested. In this study, we examined the functional consequences of multiple months of periodic microstimulation via chronically implanted MEAs at levels capable of evoking physiological responses, that is, electromyogram (EMG) activity. The functionality of the MEA and neural tissue was determined by measuring impedances, the ability of microstimulation to evoke EMG responses, and the recording of action potentials. We found that impedances and the number of recorded action potentials followed the previously reported trend of decreasing over time in both animals that received microstimulation and those which did not receive microstimulation. Despite these trends, the ability to evoke EMG responses and record action potentials was retained throughout the study. The results of this study suggest that intracortical microstimulation via MEAs did not cause functional failure, suggesting that MEA-based microstimulation is ready to transition into subchronic (< 30 days) human trials to determine whether complex spatiotemporal sensory percepts can be evoked by patterned microstimulation.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21867801     DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53815-4.00010-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Brain Res        ISSN: 0079-6123            Impact factor:   2.453


  21 in total

1.  Behavioral assessment of sensitivity to intracortical microstimulation of primate somatosensory cortex.

Authors:  Sungshin Kim; Thierri Callier; Gregg A Tabot; Robert A Gaunt; Francesco V Tenore; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The effect of chronic intracortical microstimulation on the electrode-tissue interface.

Authors:  Kevin H Chen; John F Dammann; Jessica L Boback; Francesco V Tenore; Kevin J Otto; Robert A Gaunt; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  Short reaction times in response to multi-electrode intracortical microstimulation may provide a basis for rapid movement-related feedback.

Authors:  Joseph T Sombeck; Lee E Miller
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  The robo-pigeon based on the multiple brain regions synchronization implanted microelectrodes.

Authors:  Rui-Tuo Huai; Jun-Qing Yang; Hui Wang
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2016-07-03       Impact factor: 3.269

Review 5.  Neuroprosthetic technology for individuals with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jennifer L Collinger; Stephen Foldes; Tim M Bruns; Brian Wodlinger; Robert Gaunt; Douglas J Weber
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.985

Review 6.  The role of oligodendrocytes and their progenitors on neural interface technology: A novel perspective on tissue regeneration and repair.

Authors:  Steven M Wellman; Franca Cambi; Takashi Dy Kozai
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 12.479

7.  Coordinated, multi-joint, fatigue-resistant feline stance produced with intrafascicular hind limb nerve stimulation.

Authors:  R A Normann; B R Dowden; M A Frankel; A M Wilder; S D Hiatt; N M Ledbetter; D A Warren; G A Clark
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.379

8.  Multi-electrode stimulation in somatosensory cortex increases probability of detection.

Authors:  Boubker Zaaimi; Ricardo Ruiz-Torres; Sara A Solla; Lee E Miller
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 5.379

9.  A cognitive neuroprosthetic that uses cortical stimulation for somatosensory feedback.

Authors:  Christian Klaes; Ying Shi; Spencer Kellis; Juri Minxha; Boris Revechkis; Richard A Andersen
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 10.  Restoring tactile and proprioceptive sensation through a brain interface.

Authors:  Gregg A Tabot; Sung Shin Kim; Jeremy E Winberry; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Neurobiol Dis       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 5.996

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.