OBJECTIVE: There is great interest in designing implantable neural electrode arrays that maximize function while minimizing tissue effects and damage. Although it has been shown that substrate geometry plays a key role in the tissue response to intracortically implanted, penetrating neural interfaces, there has been minimal investigation into the effect of substrate footprint on the tissue response to surface electrode arrays. This study investigates the effect of micro-electrocorticography (micro-ECoG) device geometry on the longitudinal tissue response. APPROACH: The meningeal tissue response to two micro-ECoG devices with differing geometries was evaluated. The first device had each electrode site and trace individually insulated, with open regions in between, while the second device had a solid substrate, in which all 16 electrode sites were embedded in a continuous insulating sheet. These devices were implanted bilaterally in rats, beneath cranial windows, through which the meningeal tissue response was monitored for one month after implantation. Electrode site impedance spectra were also monitored during the implantation period. MAIN RESULTS: It was observed that collagenous scar tissue formed around both types of devices. However, the distribution of the tissue growth was different between the two array designs. The mesh devices experienced thick tissue growth between the device and the cranial window, and minimal tissue growth between the device and the brain, while the solid device showed the opposite effect, with thick tissue forming between the brain and the electrode sites. SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest that an open architecture device would be more ideal for neural recording applications, in which a low impedance path from the brain to the electrode sites is critical for maximum recording quality.
OBJECTIVE: There is great interest in designing implantable neural electrode arrays that maximize function while minimizing tissue effects and damage. Although it has been shown that substrate geometry plays a key role in the tissue response to intracortically implanted, penetrating neural interfaces, there has been minimal investigation into the effect of substrate footprint on the tissue response to surface electrode arrays. This study investigates the effect of micro-electrocorticography (micro-ECoG) device geometry on the longitudinal tissue response. APPROACH: The meningeal tissue response to two micro-ECoG devices with differing geometries was evaluated. The first device had each electrode site and trace individually insulated, with open regions in between, while the second device had a solid substrate, in which all 16 electrode sites were embedded in a continuous insulating sheet. These devices were implanted bilaterally in rats, beneath cranial windows, through which the meningeal tissue response was monitored for one month after implantation. Electrode site impedance spectra were also monitored during the implantation period. MAIN RESULTS: It was observed that collagenous scar tissue formed around both types of devices. However, the distribution of the tissue growth was different between the two array designs. The mesh devices experienced thick tissue growth between the device and the cranial window, and minimal tissue growth between the device and the brain, while the solid device showed the opposite effect, with thick tissue forming between the brain and the electrode sites. SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest that an open architecture device would be more ideal for neural recording applications, in which a low impedance path from the brain to the electrode sites is critical for maximum recording quality.
Authors: Paul J Campagnola; Andrew C Millard; Mark Terasaki; Pamela E Hoppe; Christian J Malone; William A Mohler Journal: Biophys J Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Justin C Williams; Joseph A Hippensteel; John Dilgen; William Shain; Daryl R Kipke Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Thomas J Richner; Sanitta Thongpang; Sarah K Brodnick; Amelia A Schendel; Ryan W Falk; Lisa A Krugner-Higby; Ramin Pashaie; Justin C Williams Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Dae-Hyeong Kim; Jonathan Viventi; Jason J Amsden; Jianliang Xiao; Leif Vigeland; Yun-Soung Kim; Justin A Blanco; Bruce Panilaitis; Eric S Frechette; Diego Contreras; David L Kaplan; Fiorenzo G Omenetto; Yonggang Huang; Keh-Chih Hwang; Mitchell R Zakin; Brian Litt; John A Rogers Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Julie T Daniels; Gregory S Schultz; Timothy D Blalock; Qian Garrett; Gary R Grotendorst; Nicholas M Dean; Peng T Khaw Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Jonathan Viventi; Dae-Hyeong Kim; Leif Vigeland; Eric S Frechette; Justin A Blanco; Yun-Soung Kim; Andrew E Avrin; Vineet R Tiruvadi; Suk-Won Hwang; Ann C Vanleer; Drausin F Wulsin; Kathryn Davis; Casey E Gelber; Larry Palmer; Jan Van der Spiegel; Jian Wu; Jianliang Xiao; Yonggang Huang; Diego Contreras; John A Rogers; Brian Litt Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Alan D Degenhart; James Eles; Richard Dum; Jessica L Mischel; Ivan Smalianchuk; Bridget Endler; Robin C Ashmore; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Nicholas G Hatsopoulos; Wei Wang; Aaron P Batista; X Tracy Cui Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Steven M Wellman; James R Eles; Kip A Ludwig; John P Seymour; Nicholas J Michelson; William E McFadden; Alberto L Vazquez; Takashi D Y Kozai Journal: Adv Funct Mater Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 18.808
Authors: Dong-Wook Park; Sarah K Brodnick; Jared P Ness; Farid Atry; Lisa Krugner-Higby; Amelia Sandberg; Solomon Mikael; Thomas J Richner; Joseph Novello; Hyungsoo Kim; Dong-Hyun Baek; Jihye Bong; Seth T Frye; Sanitta Thongpang; Kyle I Swanson; Wendell Lake; Ramin Pashaie; Justin C Williams; Zhenqiang Ma Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: P Ledochowitsch; A Yazdan-Shahmorad; K E Bouchard; C Diaz-Botia; T L Hanson; J-W He; B A Seybold; E Olivero; E A K Phillips; T J Blanche; C E Schreiner; A Hasenstaub; E F Chang; P N Sabes; M M Maharbiz Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Hoameng Ung; Steven N Baldassano; Hank Bink; Abba M Krieger; Shawniqua Williams; Flavia Vitale; Chengyuan Wu; Dean Freestone; Ewan Nurse; Kent Leyde; Kathryn A Davis; Mark Cook; Brian Litt Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Michele Insanally; Michael Trumpis; Charles Wang; Chia-Han Chiang; Virginia Woods; Kay Palopoli-Trojani; Silvia Bossi; Robert C Froemke; Jonathan Viventi Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 5.379