Cited by 87Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design

Unique electrophysiological and impedance signatures between encapsulation types: An analysis of biological Utah array failure and benefit of a biomimetic coating in a rat model

Open access
Cody, Patrick A., Eles, James R., Lagenaur, Carl F., Kozai, Takashi D.Y., Cui, X.Tracy·2018·Biomaterials

Abstract

Intracortical microelectrode arrays, especially the Utah array, remain the most common choice for obtaining high dimensional recordings of spiking neural activity for brain computer interface and basic neuroscience research. Despite the widespread use and established design, mechanical, material and biological challenges persist that contribute to a steady decline in recording performance (as evidenced by both diminished signal amplitude and recorded cell population over time) or outright array failure. Device implantation injury causes acute cell death and activation of inflammatory microglia and astrocytes that leads to a chronic neurodegeneration and inflammatory glial aggregation around the electrode shanks and often times fibrous tissue growth above the pia along the bed of the array within the meninges. This multifaceted deleterious cascade can result in substantial variability in performance even under the same experimental conditions. We track both impedance signatures and electrophysiological performance of 4 × 4 floating microelectrode Utah arrays implanted in the primary monocular visual cortex (V1m) of Long-Evans rats over a 12-week period. We employ a repeatable visual stimulation method to compare signal-to-noise ratio as well as single- and multi-unit yield from weekly recordings. To explain signal variability with biological response, we compare arrays categorized as either Type 1, partial fibrous encapsulation, or Type 2, complete fibrous encapsulation and demonstrate performance and impedance signatures unique to encapsulation type. We additionally assess benefits of a biomolecule coating intended to minimize distance to recordable units and observe a temporary improvement on multi-unit recording yield and single-unit amplitude.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.01.025

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Compared with rigid electrodes based on silicon wafers and rigid packaging, flexible electrodes are more biocompatible and can adapt to complex tissue geometries.

    “Compared to commercially available rigid electrodes based on silicon wafers and rigid packaging, flexible electrodes are also more biocompatible (details described in section 2) and can adapt to the complex tissue geometries of the human body,[293–295] such as sulci in the cerebral cortex,[296,297] bundled peripheral nerves,[298] and stretching motions on the skin.[299]”

    From Flexible Electronics and Devices as Human–Machine Interfaces for Medical Robotics (2022) · cites this paper as [293]

    The Introduction says that subcellular electrode designs such as carbon fiber arrays reduce mechanical mismatch and inflammatory impact, which supports part of the biocompatibility rationale. It does not establish a comparison between flexible and rigid electrodes or say that flexible electrodes conform to complex tissue geometries. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [34]Kozai TD Eles JR Vazquez AL Cui XT Two-photon imaging of chronically implanted neural electrodes: Sealing methods and new insights J Neurosci Methods 2016 258 46 55 26526459 PMC4771525

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cody, P. A., Eles, J. R., Lagenaur, C. F., Kozai, T. D. Y., & Cui, X. T.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Cui, X.Tracy
Venue
Biomaterials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
161
Pages
117-128
ISSN
0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792960666
Cited by
87
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH NINDS (R01NS094396, R01NS062019, R01NS089688)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
Keywords
Utah array, intracortical microelectrode arrays, electrode encapsulation, fibrous encapsulation, biomimetic coatings, electrode impedance, chronic neurodegeneration, glial response, primary visual cortex, signal-to-noise ratio, brain-computer interface, rat model
MeSH terms
Animals, Microelectrodes, Electric Impedance, Biomimetics, Rats, Electrophysiological Phenomena

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review