| Literature DB >> 30658503 |
Mehdi Shokoueinejad1,2, Dong-Wook Park3,4, Yei Hwan Jung5, Sarah K Brodnick6, Joseph Novello7, Aaron Dingle8, Kyle I Swanson9, Dong-Hyun Baek10, Aaron J Suminski11,12, Wendell B Lake13, Zhenqiang Ma14, Justin Williams15,16.
Abstract
Since the 1940s electrocorticography (ECoG) devices and, more recently, in the last decade, micro-electrocorticography (µECoG) cortical electrode arrays were used for a wide set of experimental and clinical applications, such as epilepsy localization and brain⁻computer interface (BCI) technologies. Miniaturized implantable µECoG devices have the advantage of providing greater-density neural signal acquisition and stimulation capabilities in a minimally invasive fashion. An increased spatial resolution of the µECoG array will be useful for greater specificity diagnosis and treatment of neuronal diseases and the advancement of basic neuroscience and BCI research. In this review, recent achievements of ECoG and µECoG are discussed. The electrode configurations and varying material choices used to design µECoG arrays are discussed, including advantages and disadvantages of µECoG technology compared to electroencephalography (EEG), ECoG, and intracortical electrode arrays. Electrode materials that are the primary focus include platinum, iridium oxide, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), indium tin oxide (ITO), and graphene. We discuss the biological immune response to µECoG devices compared to other electrode array types, the role of µECoG in clinical pathology, and brain⁻computer interface technology. The information presented in this review will be helpful to understand the current status, organize available knowledge, and guide future clinical and research applications of µECoG technologies.Entities:
Keywords: ECoG; brain–computer interface; electrocorticography; electrophysiology; graphene; in vivo imaging; micro-electrocorticography; neural electrode array; neural interfaces; tissue response; µECoG
Year: 2019 PMID: 30658503 PMCID: PMC6356841 DOI: 10.3390/mi10010062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1(a) Picture of a clinical electrocorticography (ECoG) grid underneath a micro-ECoG (μECoG) array. Side-by-side comparison of the regular macro-ECoG and μECoG arrays showing difference in electrode spacing. (b) X-ray image showing the implanted ECoG and μECoG electrode. (c) Coherence analysis to characterize independent neural signals recorded from both macro-ECoG and μECoG. This suggests μECoG offers higher spatial resolution for neural signal recording. (a) Photo was taken at Neural Interfaces Research (NITRO) lab at University of Wisconsin (UW) Madison; (b,c) reprinted with permission from Reference [6].
Figure 2Spatial resolution versus invasiveness for various types of neural electrodes. Micro-ECoG has a balanced spatial resolution and invasiveness.
Figure 3Anodic stimulation via indium tin oxide micro-ECoG. Neural activity captured via fluorescent voltage sensitive dye. (A) The white circle (a) indicates a clear electrode used for stimulation. Activation profiles captured after delivering single pulses of current intensity of 0.5, 0.3, and 0.25 mA. (B) Duplicate of experiment in (A) with a pulse train of five pulses at 500 Hz. (C) Comparison of spatial activation spreading due to different stimulation settings. The spatial extent of activity was evaluated by the number of pixels above threshold. A, anterior; L, lateral. Scale bar, 1.0 mm. Reprinted with permission from Reference [50].
Figure 4The representative equivalent model of a µECoG electrode. WE, working electrode; CE, counter electrode; ZCPE, constant phase element; ZW, Warburg impedance; RCT, charge transfer resistance; RS, solution resistance.
Figure 5(a) Illustration depicting experimental ensemble combining optical stimulation with µECoG in a mouse model. (b) Optical illumination and stimulation spatially control over the mouse brain and µECoG via an optical fiber. (c) Spatial mapping of local field potentials obtained from a graphene µECoG throughout an optically evoked potential on the cortex of a channel rhodopsin positive mouse; x-scale bars represent 50 ms, y-scale bars represent 100 μV. (d) Post-mortem control depicting photo-electric artefact generated during blue-light optical stimulation; x-scale bar, 50 ms; y-scale bars, 100 μV. Reprinted with permission from Reference [44].
Comparison of different electrocorticography (ECoG) and micro-ECoG (µECoG) electrodes with regards to various parameters.
| Layout | Substrate | Recording Site | Size/Impedance | Notes | Reference (Year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2D planar array | Polyimide | Pt | 1 mm2 | 255 channels | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | Au-PEDOT:PSS | 10 × 10 µm2 | LFP and ECoG recording in freely moving rat and humans | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | Graphene | Diameter: 150–200 µm, 100–600 kΩ | Transparency | [ |
| Parylene C | Pt | Diameter: 150–200 µm | (lifetime >70 days) | ||
| 2D planar array | Silicone rubber | Pt | - | SEP recording (µECoG) and stimulation | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | Sputtered indium tin oxide (ITO) | 49-channel | Design, fabrication, and characterization | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | Sputtered indium tin oxide (ITO) | Diameter: 200 µm | Optogenetics with integrated LEDs | [ |
| 2D planar array | Polyimide | Au-PEDOT | 100 µm × 100 µm | recording from rat somatosensory cortex in vivo | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | PEDOT:PSS | 10 × 10 µm | Spike recording from surface (NeuroGrid),256 channel | [ |
| 2D planar array | Polyimide | Pt | 300 × 300 µm2 | Multiplexing with integrated transistors | [ |
| 2D planar array in a chamber system | Polyimide | Au | Diameter: 200 µm | 124-channel µECoG and 32-channel microdrive, | [ |
| 2D planar array, perforated | Parylene C | Pt | Diameter: 200 µm | 16 channel, optimizing vascular imaging. | [ |
| 2D planar array | Polyimide | Pt and Au | Diameter: 300 µm | 32-channel µECoG | [ |
| 2D planar array | Parylene C | Pt | Diameter: 200 µm<1000 kΩ | 16 channel µECoG arrays, varying array footprint. | [ |
| 2D planar array | Silk | Au | 30 electrodes | Mesh structure for conformal contact | [ |
| 2D planar array | Polyimide | Pt | 360 channels each electrode 300 um × 300 um | Multiplexed using Si transistors | [ |
| 2D planar array | PLGA | Si | 256 channels overall 3 cm × 3.5 cm | Bioresorbable | [ |
2D, two-dimensional; Pt, platinum; Au, gold; Si, silicon; LED, light-emitting diode; LFP, local field potential; PLGA, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PEDOT, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene); PSS, poly(styrenesulfonate); SEP, somatosensory evoked potential.
Comparison of different penetrating electrodes with regards to various parameters.
| Electrode | Layout | Substrate | Recording Site | Size/Impedance | Notes | Reference (Year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micro wire | 3D array | N/A | Stainless | 50 µm ×50 µm | Primary auditory cortex (rat, ECoG recording) | [ |
| 3D array | N/A | Stainless | 50 µm × 50 µm | Single cortical neurons (monkey) | [ | |
| 3D array | N/A | Tungsten | 35 µm2 | Cerebral cortex (rat) | [ | |
| Michigan | Assembled | Si | Ir | 100 µm2, | LFP | [ |
| Michigan | Assembled | 15 µm thickness | Ir | 177 µm2, 0.72 MΩ | Cerebral cortex (rat) | [ |
| Michigan | 2D array | Si | PEDOT & Au | Gold, 9.1 MΩ | Single unit | [ |
| Michigan | 2D array | Si | PEDOT | - | PEDOT VS Carbon | [ |
| Utah | 10 × 10 | Doped Si | Ti/Pt (50/240 nm) | Width 80 µm, length 1500 µm | Insulated with polyimide | [ |
| Utah | 10 × 10 | Doped Si | Pt/Ir | 100–300 kΩ | Tip exposed (500 µm) | [ |
| Utah | 10 × 10 | Doped Si | Pt/Ir | 1600 µm2 100–750 kΩ | Tip exposed (40 µm) | [ |
| Utah | 10 × 103D array | Doped Si | Pt | 125 kΩ | Cortical stimulation/recording (>90 days in vitro) | [ |
| Doped Si | Sputtered iridium oxide film (SIROF) | 6 kΩ | Cortical stimulation/recording (>90 days in vitro) | |||
| Utah | Unrestricted freedom in the 2D probe | 300 µm thickness of Si | Ti/Au/Pt (30/200/100 nm) | 1–2 MΩ | 72 channels | [ |
3D, three-dimensional; Ir, iridium; Ti, titanium.