| Literature DB >> 36005009 |
Haochuan Wang1, Qian Ma2,3, Keming Chen1, Hanqing Zhang1, Yinyan Yang1, Nenggan Zheng2,3, Hui Hong1.
Abstract
As the basic tools for neuroscience research, invasive neural recording devices can obtain high-resolution neuronal activity signals through electrodes connected to the subject's brain. Existing wireless neural recording devices are large in size or need external large-scale equipment for wireless power supply, which limits their application. Here, we developed an ultra-low-noise, low power and miniaturized dual-channel wireless neural recording microsystem. With the full-differential front-end structure of the dual operational amplifiers (op-amps), the noise level and power consumption are notably reduced. The hierarchical microassembly technology, which integrates wafer-level packaged op-amps and the miniaturized Bluetooth module, dramatically reduces the size of the wireless neural recording microsystem. The microsystem shows a less than 100 nV/Hz ultra-low noise level, about 10 mW low power consumption, and 9 × 7 × 5 mm3 small size. The neural recording ability was then demonstrated in saline and a chronic rat model. Because of its miniaturization, it can be applied to freely behaving small animals, such as rats. Its features of ultra-low noise and high bandwidth are conducive to low-amplitude neural signal recording, which may help advance neuroscientific discovery.Entities:
Keywords: full-differential front-end structure; hierarchical microassembly technology; low-power system; system miniaturization; ultra-low noise; wireless neural recording
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36005009 PMCID: PMC9405808 DOI: 10.3390/bios12080613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1The comparison of front−end structures. (a) The front−end structure construction of instrumentation amplifier. (b) The front−end structure construction of cascade op−amps. (c) The dual op−amps full differential neural recording front−end structure we proposed.
Figure 2Ultra−low noise, miniaturized and lightweight dual−channel wireless neural recording microsystem, and the freely moving rats within this system. (a) Photograph of a rat assembly with the wireless neural recording microsystem through an implanted 16−channel rigid electrode array. (b) Photograph of components of the wireless neural recording microsystem: (b1) op−amps of neural signal amplification front end, (b2) miniaturized Bluetooth low−energy module, (b3) 30 mAh, 3.7 V lithium battery, (b4) wireless neural recording microsystem connected to the battery. (c) Schematic of the wireless neural recording system, (c1) schematic of the ultra−low−noise neural recording front end and the wireless neural recording microsystem, and (c2) schematic of the receiver base station. (d) The flexible substrate wireless neural recording microsystem. (e) Implantable 16−channel rigid electrode array. (f) Photograph of the electrode array implantation process. (g) Freely moving rat with the wireless neural recording microsystem.
Figure 3The equivalent noise circuit diagram of the dual op−amps full differential neural recording front end.
Figure 4The waveforms comparison of wireless recording microsystem and apollo II wired recording system in vivo. (a) Schematic of the recording sites and the electrode connections. (b) The multi−taper spectrograms of recorded spikes by the wireless recording microsystem. (c) The multi−taper spectrograms of recorded spikes by the Apollo II wired recording system. (d) The recorded spontaneous LFPs and spikes by the wireless recording microsystem. (e) The LFPs and spikes by the Apollo II wired recording system. (f) The specification of 10–500 Hz second−order Butterworth band-pass filter and its step response. (g) The specification of 500–3000 Hz third−order Butterworth band-pass filter and its step response.
Figure 5The electrical properties of wireless neural recording microsystem. (a) The transfer function test environment. (b) Transfer function measured and simulated of the dual op−amps full differential neural recording front end. (c) Input referred noise measured of the wireless neural recording microsystem in saline solution and compared with the simulation. (d) The waveform of recorded 500 Hz, 2 mV signal injected in the saline by the wireless neural recording microsystem using 35 m diameter tungsten electrodes, and waveform after filtering out high−frequency interference. (e) Power spectral density in saline with or without 500 Hz input signal. (f) Input referred noise comparison of wireless recording microsystem and Apollo II wired recording system.
Comparison of the microsystem features and other wireless recording systems fully validated in vivo.
| TBSI [ | PennBMBI [ | WAND [ | BLE | Wireless Bidirectional [ | This Work | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2011 | 2015 | 2019 | 2021 | 2022 | 2022 |
| Size (mm | 22 × 22 × 22 | 56 × 36 × 13 | 36 × 33 × 15 | 15 × 15 × 12 | 19.9 × 18.1 × 6.6 | 9 × 7 × 5 |
| Weight (g) | 4.5 | - | 7.4 (board) | 3.9 (total) | 2.8 | 0.257 (board) |
| Power | - | 290 | 172 | 28.6 | 62 | ∼10 |
| Input referred | 10 | 4.7 | 26 | 3 | 2.4 1 | <0.1 |
| Number of | 15 | 4 | 128 | 1 | 8 | 2 |
| Sampling rate | - | 21 | 1 | 10 | 20 | 20 |
| ADC resolution | - | 12 | 15 | 12 | 16 | 12 |
1 The noise of commercial brain–computer interface chip RHS2116.