CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringTactile and Sensory InteractionsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Restoring tactile and proprioceptive sensation through a brain interface

Open access
Tabot, Gregg A., Kim, Sung Shin, Winberry, Jeremy E., Bensmaia, Sliman J.·2015·Neurobiology of Disease
DOI 10.1016/j.nbd.2014.08.029PMC PMC4362964
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Somatosensation plays a critical role in the dexterous manipulation of objects, in emotional communication, and in the embodiment of our limbs. For upper-limb neuroprostheses to be adopted by prospective users, prosthetic limbs will thus need to provide sensory information about the position of the limb in space and about objects grasped in the hand. One approach to restoring touch and proprioception consists of electrically stimulating neurons in somatosensory cortex in the hopes of eliciting meaningful sensations to support the dexterous use of the hands, promote their embodiment, and perhaps even restore the affective dimension of touch. In this review, we discuss the importance of touch and proprioception in everyday life, then describe approaches to providing artificial somatosensory feedback through intracortical microstimulation (ICMS). We explore the importance of biomimicry--the elicitation of naturalistic patterns of neuronal activation--and that of adaptation--the brain's ability to adapt to novel sensory input, and argue that both biomimicry and adaptation will play a critical role in the artificial restoration of somatosensation. We also propose that the documented re-organization that occurs after injury does not pose a significant obstacle to brain interfaces. While still at an early stage of development, sensory restoration is a critical step in transitioning upper-limb neuroprostheses from the laboratory to the clinic.

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.nbd.2014.08.029

Cites

83 of 83 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?

  • Most existing interfaces are either from the nerve or the cortex.

    “Most existing interfaces are either from the nerve or the cortex (Tabot et al., 2015).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Tabot et al., 2015

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes stimulating somatosensory cortex as one approach to restoring sensation, supporting the existence of cortical interfaces. The passages found do not establish that most existing interfaces use either nerves or cortex, or discuss nerve interfaces as the other principal category. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The first bidirectional brain-machine interface allowed a non-human primate's motor cortex signal to control a cursor while S1 stimulation provided sensory feedback, though learning was required for mapping.

    “Another important breakthrough is the first bidirectional brain-machine interface in which a signal from the motor cortex of a non-human primate was able to control the cursor, while stimulation is applied simultaneously to the brain area S1 to give sensory feedback on the movements, though the primate had to go through a learning process for mapping the afferent interface (Rajan et al., 2015; Tab”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Tabot et al., 2015

    The Adaptation section describes a monkey learning to guide a cursor using intracortical stimulation as feedback, and separately describes the first study to combine S1 stimulation with online decoding of motor signals to control a virtual limb. It does not establish that the cursor in the first bidirectional interface was controlled specifically by motor-cortex signals; the claim appears to combine details from two studies. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Weiss T Rapid functional plasticity of the somatosensory cortex after finger amputation Exp Brain Res 2000b 134 199 203 11037286

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tabot, G. A., Kim, S. S., Winberry, J. E., & Bensmaia, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Neurobiology of Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
83
Pages
191-198
ISSN
0969-9961 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.nbd.2014.08.029
PMC
PMC4362964
OpenAlex
W2009146005
Cited by
83
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Disease (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RO1 NS08285, c-049)
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-0903637)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N6601-10-C-4056)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
tactile perception, proprioception, brain-computer interface, intracortical microstimulation, somatosensory feedback, biomimetics, sensory adaptation, embodiment, affective touch
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Amputees, Animals, Electric Stimulation, Humans, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Proprioception, Psychomotor Performance, Self Concept, Somatosensory Cortex, Touch, Prostheses and Implants, Biomimetics, Upper Extremity, Touch Perception, Feedback, Sensory, Brain-Computer Interfaces

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