Reducing Behavioral Detection Thresholds per Electrode
brain computer interface
charge density
detection thresholds
intracortical microstimulation (ICMS)
neuroprostheses
Journal
Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
Titre abrégé: Front Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101478481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
15
02
2022
accepted:
31
05
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
6
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) has shown promise in restoring quality of life to patients suffering from paralysis, specifically when used in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). However, these benefits can be hampered by long-term degradation of electrode performance due to the brain's foreign body response. Advances in microfabrication techniques have allowed for the development of neuroprostheses with subcellular electrodes, which are characterized by greater versatility and a less detrimental immune response during chronic use. These probes are hypothesized to enable more selective, higher-resolution stimulation of cortical tissue with long-term implants. However, microstimulation using physiologically relevant charges with these smaller-scale devices can damage electrode sites and reduce the efficacy of the overall device. Studies have shown promise in bypassing this limitation by spreading the stimulation charge between multiple channels in an implanted electrode array, but to our knowledge the usefulness of this strategy in laminar arrays with electrode sites spanning each layer of the cortex remains unexplored. To investigate the efficacy of simultaneous multi-channel ICMS in electrode arrays with stimulation sites spanning cortical depth, we implanted laminar electrode arrays in the primary somatosensory cortex of rats trained in a behavioral avoidance paradigm. By measuring detection thresholds, we were able to quantify improvements in ICMS performance using a simultaneous multi-channel stimulation paradigm. The charge required per site to elicit detection thresholds was halved when stimulating from two adjacent electrode sites, although the overall charge used by the implant was increased. This reduction in threshold charge was more pronounced when stimulating with more than two channels and lessened with greater distance between stimulating channels. Our findings suggest that these improvements are based on the synchronicity and polarity of each stimulus, leading us to conclude that these improvements in stimulation efficiency per electrode are due to charge summation as opposed to a summation of neural responses to stimulation. Additionally, the per-site charge reductions are seen regardless of the cortical depth of each utilized channel. This evocation of physiological detection thresholds with lower stimulation currents per electrode site has implications for the feasibility of stimulation regimes in future advanced neuroprosthetic devices, which could benefit from reducing the charge output per site.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35784835
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.876142
pmc: PMC9247280
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
876142Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL134621
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Kunigk, Urdaneta, Malone, Delgado and Otto.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Aug 30;137(2):141-50
pubmed: 15262054
J Neural Eng. 2013 Oct;10(5):056013
pubmed: 23985904
Brain Stimul. 2008 Jan;1(1):7-15
pubmed: 19142235
Front Neurosci. 2022 Jun 13;16:908858
pubmed: 35769707
PLoS Biol. 2006 May;4(5):e134
pubmed: 16620152
Nature. 2011 Oct 05;479(7372):228-31
pubmed: 21976021
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Aug;96(2):512-21
pubmed: 16835359
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Oct 22;116(43):21821-21827
pubmed: 31591224
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2006;29:229-57
pubmed: 16776585
Neuron. 2009 Aug 27;63(4):508-22
pubmed: 19709632
Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Apr 10;9:47
pubmed: 25914630
Sci Adv. 2017 Feb 15;3(2):e1601966
pubmed: 28246640
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 31;21(10):e16194
pubmed: 31642810
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Dec;104(6):3388-412
pubmed: 20810682
J Neural Eng. 2021 Apr 14;18(5):
pubmed: 33706301
Cell. 2020 May 14;181(4):774-783.e5
pubmed: 32413298
Science. 2021 May 21;372(6544):831-836
pubmed: 34016775
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1990 May;28(3):257-9
pubmed: 2377008
Elife. 2018 Apr 10;7:
pubmed: 29633714
J Neurophysiol. 1957 Jul;20(4):408-34
pubmed: 13439410
ACS Chem Neurosci. 2015 Jan 21;6(1):68-83
pubmed: 25587704
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 30;8(1):13067
pubmed: 30166583
Nat Mater. 2015 Dec;14(12):1286-92
pubmed: 26436341
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:2489-92
pubmed: 23366430
Brain Stimul. 2022 Jan-Feb;15(1):141-151
pubmed: 34861412
J Neural Eng. 2021 Feb 24;18(1):015002
pubmed: 33624614
J Neurosci. 1993 Apr;13(4):1719-29
pubmed: 8463847
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jun 6;114(23):5894-5899
pubmed: 28533392
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:1809-1812
pubmed: 31946248
Front Neurosci. 2021 Sep 08;15:712578
pubmed: 34566563
Sci Transl Med. 2016 Oct 19;8(361):361ra141
pubmed: 27738096
Nat Methods. 2016 Oct;13(10):875-82
pubmed: 27571550
J Neurophysiol. 1968 Sep;31(5):659-69
pubmed: 5711137
Nat Nanotechnol. 2015 Jul;10(7):629-636
pubmed: 26053995
Sci Rep. 2020 May 19;10(1):8256
pubmed: 32427934
Front Neuroeng. 2014 May 08;7:13
pubmed: 24847248