Takashi D Y Kozai1, Zhanhong Du2, Zhannetta V Gugel3, Matthew A Smith4, Steven M Chase5, Lance M Bodily6, Ellen M Caparosa6, Robert M Friedlander6, X Tracy Cui2. 1. Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, United States; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States. Electronic address: tdk18@pitt.edu. 2. Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, United States; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States. 3. Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, United States. 4. Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, United States; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, United States. 5. Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, United States; Biomedical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, United States. 6. Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracortical electrode arrays that can record extracellular action potentials from small, targeted groups of neurons are critical for basic neuroscience research and emerging clinical applications. In general, these electrode devices suffer from reliability and variability issues, which have led to comparative studies of existing and emerging electrode designs to optimize performance. Comparisons of different chronic recording devices have been limited to single-unit (SU) activity and employed a bulk averaging approach treating brain architecture as homogeneous with respect to electrode distribution. NEW METHOD: In this study, we optimize the methods and parameters to quantify evoked multi-unit (MU) and local field potential (LFP) recordings in eight mice visual cortices. RESULTS: These findings quantify the large recording differences stemming from anatomical differences in depth and the layer dependent relative changes to SU and MU recording performance over 6-months. For example, performance metrics in Layer V and stratum pyramidale were initially higher than Layer II/III, but decrease more rapidly. On the other hand, Layer II/III maintained recording metrics longer. In addition, chronic changes at the level of layer IV are evaluated using visually evoked current source density. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): The use of MU and LFP activity for evaluation and tracking biological depth provides a more comprehensive characterization of the electrophysiological performance landscape of microelectrodes. CONCLUSIONS: A more extensive spatial and temporal insight into the chronic electrophysiological performance over time will help uncover the biological and mechanical failure mechanisms of the neural electrodes and direct future research toward the elucidation of design optimization for specific applications.
BACKGROUND: Intracortical electrode arrays that can record extracellular action potentials from small, targeted groups of neurons are critical for basic neuroscience research and emerging clinical applications. In general, these electrode devices suffer from reliability and variability issues, which have led to comparative studies of existing and emerging electrode designs to optimize performance. Comparisons of different chronic recording devices have been limited to single-unit (SU) activity and employed a bulk averaging approach treating brain architecture as homogeneous with respect to electrode distribution. NEW METHOD: In this study, we optimize the methods and parameters to quantify evoked multi-unit (MU) and local field potential (LFP) recordings in eight mice visual cortices. RESULTS: These findings quantify the large recording differences stemming from anatomical differences in depth and the layer dependent relative changes to SU and MU recording performance over 6-months. For example, performance metrics in Layer V and stratum pyramidale were initially higher than Layer II/III, but decrease more rapidly. On the other hand, Layer II/III maintained recording metrics longer. In addition, chronic changes at the level of layer IV are evaluated using visually evoked current source density. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): The use of MU and LFP activity for evaluation and tracking biological depth provides a more comprehensive characterization of the electrophysiological performance landscape of microelectrodes. CONCLUSIONS: A more extensive spatial and temporal insight into the chronic electrophysiological performance over time will help uncover the biological and mechanical failure mechanisms of the neural electrodes and direct future research toward the elucidation of design optimization for specific applications.
Authors: T D Y Kozai; T C Marzullo; F Hooi; N B Langhals; A K Majewska; E B Brown; D R Kipke Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: C S Bjornsson; S J Oh; Y A Al-Kofahi; Y J Lim; K L Smith; J N Turner; S De; B Roysam; W Shain; S J Kim Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2006-06-21 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Andy Y Shih; Pablo Blinder; Philbert S Tsai; Beth Friedman; Geoffrey Stanley; Patrick D Lyden; David Kleinfeld Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 24.884
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: Paras R Patel; Kyounghwan Na; Huanan Zhang; Takashi D Y Kozai; Nicholas A Kotov; Euisik Yoon; Cynthia A Chestek Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Zhanhong Jeff Du; Christi L Kolarcik; Takashi D Y Kozai; Silvia D Luebben; Shawn A Sapp; Xin Sally Zheng; James A Nabity; X Tracy Cui Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Takashi D Y Kozai; Andrea S Jaquins-Gerstl; Alberto L Vazquez; Adrian C Michael; X Tracy Cui Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: I Mitch Taylor; Zhanhong Du; Emma T Bigelow; James R Eles; Anthony R Horner; Kasey A Catt; Stephen G Weber; Brian G Jamieson; X Tracy Cui Journal: J Mater Chem B Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 6.331
Authors: Steven M Wellman; Kelly Guzman; Kevin C Stieger; Lauren E Brink; Sadhana Sridhar; Mitchell T Dubaniewicz; Lehong Li; Franca Cambi; Takashi D Y Kozai Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 12.479