Literature DB >> 31778982

Short reaction times in response to multi-electrode intracortical microstimulation may provide a basis for rapid movement-related feedback.

Joseph T Sombeck1, Lee E Miller.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Tetraplegic patients using brain-machine interfaces can make visually guided reaches with robotic arms. However, restoring proprioceptive feedback to these patients will be critical, as evidenced by the movement deficit in patients with proprioceptive loss. Proprioception is critical in large part because it provides faster feedback than vision. Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is a promising approach, but the ICMS-evoked reaction time (RT) is typically slower than that to natural proprioceptive and often even visual cues, implying that ICMS feedback may not be fast enough to guide movement. APPROACH: For most sensory modalities, RT decreases with increased stimulus intensity. Thus, it may be that stimulation intensities beyond what has previously been used will result in faster RTs. To test this, we compared the RT to ICMS applied through multi-electrode arrays in area 2 of somatosensory cortex to that of mechanical and visual cues. MAIN
RESULTS: We found that the RT to single-electrode ICMS decreased with increased current, frequency, and train length. For 100 µA, 330 Hz stimulation, the highest single-electrode intensity we tested routinely, most electrodes resulted in RTs slower than the mechanical cue but slightly faster than the visual cue. While increasing the current beyond 100 µA resulted in faster RTs, sustained stimulation at this level may damage tissue. Alternatively, by stimulating through multiple electrodes (mICMS), a large amount of current can be injected while keeping that through each electrode at a safe level. We found that stimulation with at least 480 µA equally distributed over 16 electrodes could produce RTs as much as 20 ms faster than the mechanical cue, roughly the conduction delay to cortex from the periphery. SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that mICMS may provide a means to supply rapid, movement-related feedback. Future neuroprosthetics may need spatiotemporally patterned mICMS to convey useful somatosensory information. Novelty & Significance Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is a promising approach for providing artificial somatosensation to patients with spinal cord injury or limb amputation, but in prior experiments, subjects have been unable to respond as quickly to it as to natural cues. We have investigated the use of multi-electrode stimulation (mICMS) and discovered that it can produce reaction times as fast or faster even than natural mechanical cues. Although our stimulus trains were not modulated in time, this result opens the door to more complex spatiotemporal patterns of mICMS that might be used to rapidly write in complex somatosensory information to the CNS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31778982      PMCID: PMC7189902          DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ab5cf3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neural Eng        ISSN: 1741-2552            Impact factor:   5.379


  51 in total

1.  Laminar variation in threshold for detection of electrical excitation of striate cortex by macaques.

Authors:  Edgar A DeYoe; Jeffrey D Lewine; Robert W Doty
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-08-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface.

Authors:  Gregg A Tabot; John F Dammann; Joshua A Berg; Francesco V Tenore; Jessica L Boback; R Jacob Vogelstein; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Comparing temporal aspects of visual, tactile, and microstimulation feedback for motor control.

Authors:  Jason M Godlove; Erin O Whaite; Aaron P Batista
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy.

Authors:  C Ghez; J Gordon; M F Ghilardi
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Neuronal loss due to prolonged controlled-current stimulation with chronically implanted microelectrodes in the cat cerebral cortex.

Authors:  Douglas McCreery; Victor Pikov; Philip R Troyk
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 5.379

6.  Psychophysical correspondence between vibrotactile intensity and intracortical microstimulation for tactile neuroprostheses in rats.

Authors:  İsmail Devecioğlu; Burak Güçlü
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia.

Authors:  Jennifer L Collinger; Brian Wodlinger; John E Downey; Wei Wang; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Douglas J Weber; Angus J C McMorland; Meel Velliste; Michael L Boninger; Andrew B Schwartz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Electrical stimulation of the proprioceptive cortex (area 3a) used to instruct a behaving monkey.

Authors:  Brian M London; Luke R Jordan; Christopher R Jackson; Lee E Miller
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.802

9.  Active tactile exploration using a brain-machine-brain interface.

Authors:  Joseph E O'Doherty; Mikhail A Lebedev; Peter J Ifft; Katie Z Zhuang; Solaiman Shokur; Hannes Bleuler; Miguel A L Nicolelis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Engineering Artificial Somatosensation Through Cortical Stimulation in Humans.

Authors:  Brian Lee; Daniel Kramer; Michelle Armenta Salas; Spencer Kellis; David Brown; Tatyana Dobreva; Christian Klaes; Christi Heck; Charles Liu; Richard A Andersen
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-04
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The science and engineering behind sensitized brain-controlled bionic hands.

Authors:  Chethan Pandarinath; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 37.312

2.  Characterizing the short-latency evoked response to intracortical microstimulation across a multi-electrode array.

Authors:  Joseph T Sombeck; Juliet Heye; Karthik Kumaravelu; Stefan M Goetz; Angel V Peterchev; Warren M Grill; Sliman Bensmaia; Lee E Miller
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  The Neurophysiological Representation of Imagined Somatosensory Percepts in Human Cortex.

Authors:  Luke Bashford; Isabelle Rosenthal; Spencer Kellis; Kelsie Pejsa; Daniel Kramer; Brian Lee; Charles Liu; Richard A Andersen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 6.709

4.  Similarities Between Somatosensory Cortical Responses Induced via Natural Touch and Microstimulation in the Ventral Posterior Lateral Thalamus in Macaques.

Authors:  Joseph Thachil Francis; Anna Rozenboym; Lee von Kraus; Shaohua Xu; Pratik Chhatbar; Mulugeta Semework; Emerson Hawley; John Chapin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.