| Literature DB >> 27322338 |
Michael Polanco1, Sebastian Bawab2, Hargsoon Yoon3.
Abstract
The functional longevity of a neural probe is dependent upon its ability to minimize injury risk during the insertion and recording period in vivo, which could be related to motion-related strain between the probe and surrounding tissue. A series of finite element analyses was conducted to study the extent of the strain induced within the brain in an area around a neural probe. This study focuses on the transient behavior of neural probe and brain tissue interface with a viscoelastic model. Different stages of the interface from initial insertion of neural probe to full bonding of the probe by astro-glial sheath formation are simulated utilizing analytical tools to investigate the effects of relative motion between the neural probe and the brain while friction coefficients and kinematic frequencies are varied. The analyses can provide an in-depth look at the quantitative benefits behind using soft materials for neural probes.Entities:
Keywords: brain; finite element analysis; neural electrodes; viscoelasticity
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27322338 PMCID: PMC4931487 DOI: 10.3390/bios6020027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Brain viscoelastic material properties.
| Density (kg/mm3) | Bulk Modulus (GPa) | Short-term Shear Modulus, Go (kPa) | Long-term Shear Modulus, G∞ (kPa) | Decay constant, β (m·s−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | 1.05 × 10−6 | 2.1 | 10 | 2 | 0.08 |
Maximum stress side interface values for 165 GPa (silicon)/0.0002 GPa probe at the tip.
| Frequency | Interface Stress (Pa) with 0.3 COF | Interface Stress (Pa) with 0.6 COF | Interface Stress (Pa) with 1 COF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Hz | 325/14.7 | 304/6.62 | 291/3.92 |
| 5 Hz | 607/12.9 | 570/5.27 | 545/2.92 |
| 10 Hz | 857.5/11.6 | 813/3.7 | 764/2.96 |
| 15 Hz | 1010/10 | 955/3.38 | 906/3.46 |
| 20 Hz | 1149/9.3 | 1080/4.02 | 1011/3.67 |
| 30 Hz | 1310/10 | 1230/5.06 | 1146/4.79 |
| 40 Hz | 1400/10.8 | 1350/6.2 | 1260/5.53 |
Maximum strain side interface values for 165 GPa (silicon)/0.0002 GPa probe at the tip.
| Frequency | Side Interface Strain with 0.3 COF | Side Interface Strain with 0.6 COF | Side Interface Strain with 1 COF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Hz | 0.0503/2.14e−3 | 0.0474/1.03e−3 | 0.0448/5.67e−4 |
| 5 Hz | 0.052/1.45e−3 | 0.049/6e−4 | 0.0463/3.29e−4 |
| 10 Hz | 0.0529/9.38e−4 | 0.0497/3.27e−4 | 0.0472/2.3e−4 |
| 15 Hz | 0.0535/7.11e−4 | 0.05/2.58e−4 | 0.0478/2.08e−4 |
| 20 Hz | 0.0539/5.91e−4 | 0.0511/2.42e−4 | 0.0487/1.94e−4 |
| 30 Hz | 0.054/5.24e−4 | 0.0514/2.42e−4 | 0.0487/2.06e−4 |
| 40 Hz | 0.0583/5.05e−4 | 0.0552/2.74e−4 | 0.0515/2.33e−4 |
Figure 1Stress vs. Strain for a 4-micron amplitude at various applied frequencies using a coefficient of friction (COF) of 0.6.
Figure 2Stress vs. Strain for a 4-micron amplitude at 40 Hz using various COFs.
Figure 3Strain Energy in the 200 kPa probe as a function of friction coefficient and frequency.
Figure 4Strain distribution of the brain using a micromotion displacement of 4 µm and interfaced with a (a) silicon probe and (b) 200 kPa stiff probe.
Figure 5Von Mises Strain versus time along the interface of the Silicon probe with the brain.
Figure 6Von Mises Strain versus time along the interface of the 200 kPa stiff probe with the brain.
Figure 7Element locations along interface tip for time history traces corresponding to graphs in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Figure 8Stress vs. Strain for 4 microns comparing first 3 cycles of motion using 200 kPa Young’s Modulus.