PURPOSE: Recent studies in epilepsy, cognition, and brain machine interfaces have shown the utility of recording intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) with greater spatial resolution. Many of these studies utilize microelectrodes connected to specialized amplifiers that are optimized for such recordings. We recently measured the impedances of several commercial microelectrodes and demonstrated that they will distort iEEG signals if connected to clinical EEG amplifiers commonly used in most centers. In this study we demonstrate the clinical implications of this effect and identify some of the potential difficulties in using microelectrodes. METHODS: Human iEEG data were digitally filtered to simulate the signal recorded by a hybrid grid (two macroelectrodes and eight microelectrodes) connected to a standard EEG amplifier. The filtered iEEG data were read by three trained epileptologists, and high frequency oscillations (HFOs) were detected with a well-known algorithm. The filtering method was verified experimentally by recording an injected EEG signal in a saline bath with the same physical acquisition system used to generate the model. Several electrodes underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM). KEY FINDINGS: Macroelectrode recordings were unaltered compared to the source iEEG signal, but microelectrodes attenuated low frequencies. The attenuated signals were difficult to interpret: all three clinicians changed their clinical scoring of slowing and seizures when presented with the same data recorded on different sized electrodes. The HFO detection algorithm was oversensitive with microelectrodes, classifying many more HFOs than when the same data were recorded with macroelectrodes. In addition, during experimental recordings the microelectrodes produced much greater noise as well as large baseline fluctuations, creating sharply contoured transients, and superimposed "false" HFOs. SEM of these microelectrodes demonstrated marked variability in exposed electrode surface area, lead fractures, and sharp edges. SIGNIFICANCE: Microelectrodes should not be used with low impedance (<1 GΩ) amplifiers due to severe signal attenuation and variability that changes clinical interpretations. The current method of preparing microelectrodes can leave sharp edges and nonuniform amounts of exposed wire. Even when recorded with higher impedance amplifiers, microelectrode data are highly prone to artifacts that are difficult to interpret. Great care must be taken when analyzing iEEG from high impedance microelectrodes. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PURPOSE: Recent studies in epilepsy, cognition, and brain machine interfaces have shown the utility of recording intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) with greater spatial resolution. Many of these studies utilize microelectrodes connected to specialized amplifiers that are optimized for such recordings. We recently measured the impedances of several commercial microelectrodes and demonstrated that they will distort iEEG signals if connected to clinical EEG amplifiers commonly used in most centers. In this study we demonstrate the clinical implications of this effect and identify some of the potential difficulties in using microelectrodes. METHODS:Human iEEG data were digitally filtered to simulate the signal recorded by a hybrid grid (two macroelectrodes and eight microelectrodes) connected to a standard EEG amplifier. The filtered iEEG data were read by three trained epileptologists, and high frequency oscillations (HFOs) were detected with a well-known algorithm. The filtering method was verified experimentally by recording an injected EEG signal in a saline bath with the same physical acquisition system used to generate the model. Several electrodes underwent scanning electron microscopy (SEM). KEY FINDINGS: Macroelectrode recordings were unaltered compared to the source iEEG signal, but microelectrodes attenuated low frequencies. The attenuated signals were difficult to interpret: all three clinicians changed their clinical scoring of slowing and seizures when presented with the same data recorded on different sized electrodes. The HFO detection algorithm was oversensitive with microelectrodes, classifying many more HFOs than when the same data were recorded with macroelectrodes. In addition, during experimental recordings the microelectrodes produced much greater noise as well as large baseline fluctuations, creating sharply contoured transients, and superimposed "false" HFOs. SEM of these microelectrodes demonstrated marked variability in exposed electrode surface area, lead fractures, and sharp edges. SIGNIFICANCE: Microelectrodes should not be used with low impedance (<1 GΩ) amplifiers due to severe signal attenuation and variability that changes clinical interpretations. The current method of preparing microelectrodes can leave sharp edges and nonuniform amounts of exposed wire. Even when recorded with higher impedance amplifiers, microelectrode data are highly prone to artifacts that are difficult to interpret. Great care must be taken when analyzing iEEG from high impedance microelectrodes. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Michel Le Van Quyen; Richard Staba; Anatol Bragin; Clayton Dickson; Mario Valderrama; Itzhak Fried; Jerome Engel Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: William C Stacey; Spencer Kellis; Paras R Patel; Bradley Greger; Christopher R Butson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Wilson Truccolo; Jacob A Donoghue; Leigh R Hochberg; Emad N Eskandar; Joseph R Madsen; William S Anderson; Emery N Brown; Eric Halgren; Sydney S Cash Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2011-03-27 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Matt Stead; Mark Bower; Benjamin H Brinkmann; Kendall Lee; W Richard Marsh; Fredric B Meyer; Brian Litt; Jamie Van Gompel; Greg A Worrell Journal: Brain Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Justin A Blanco; Matt Stead; Abba Krieger; William Stacey; Douglas Maus; Eric Marsh; Jonathan Viventi; Kendall H Lee; Richard Marsh; Brian Litt; Gregory A Worrell Journal: Brain Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Catherine A Schevon; Shennan A Weiss; Guy McKhann; Robert R Goodman; Rafael Yuste; Ronald G Emerson; Andrew J Trevelyan Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2012 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: A Misra; J F Burke; A G Ramayya; J Jacobs; M R Sperling; K A Moxon; M J Kahana; J J Evans; A D Sharan Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Bertrand Mathon; Stéphane Clemenceau; Dominique Hasboun; Marie-Odile Habert; Hayat Belaid; Vi-Huong Nguyen-Michel; Virginie Lambrecq; Vincent Navarro; Sophie Dupont; Michel Baulac; Philippe Cornu; Claude Adam Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Stephen V Gliske; Zachary T Irwin; Kathryn A Davis; Kinshuk Sahaya; Cynthia Chestek; William C Stacey Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Chia-Han Chiang; Charles Wang; Katrina Barth; Shervin Rahimpour; Michael Trumpis; Suseendrakumar Duraivel; Iakov Rachinskiy; Agrita Dubey; Katie E Wingel; Megan Wong; Nicholas S Witham; Thomas Odell; Virginia Woods; Brinnae Bent; Werner Doyle; Daniel Friedman; Eckardt Bihler; Christopher F Reiche; Derek G Southwell; Michael M Haglund; Allan H Friedman; Shivanand P Lad; Sasha Devore; Orrin Devinsky; Florian Solzbacher; Bijan Pesaran; Gregory Cogan; Jonathan Viventi Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Efstathios D Kondylis; Thomas A Wozny; Witold J Lipski; Alexandra Popescu; Vincent J DeStefino; Behnaz Esmaeili; Vineet K Raghu; Anto Bagic; R Mark Richardson Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 4.003