Cited by 49Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and ResearchMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Intrafascicular electrodes for stimulation and recording from mudpuppy spinal roots

Yoshida, Ken, Jovanović, Ksenija, Stein, Richard B·2000·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

This paper presents a technique for stimulating and recording from multiple intact spinal roots in the in vitro mudpuppy (Necturus maculatus) spinal cord-forearm preparation using fine wire electrodes, a modified intrafascicular electrode. We found that multiple spinal roots of the preparation could be implanted with these modified electrodes for independent stimulation or recording of the roots without inducing mechanical vibrations, disrupting conduction, or obscuring the view of or access to the spinal cord. Recording and stimulation performance using these electrodes was compared with results obtained using conventional hook electrodes. We found that intrafascicular electrodes were more efficient than hook electrodes for stimulating nerve fibers, being able to produce equivalent levels of activation using stimulation levels that were an order of magnitude smaller. Compound action potential signals recorded from electrodes implanted in the spinal roots were found to be larger than those from hook electrodes placed around the corresponding spinal nerve, showing that intrafascicular electrodes are more efficient at recording activity in the nerve. Moreover, it was possible to record evoked activity from cutaneous mechanoreceptors, even though the signal to noise ratio was low. Rough estimates of the conduction velocities for the fastest components in the compound action potentials were calculated and found to be around 17.5 m/s for both dorsal and ventral roots.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0165-0270(99)00176-4

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoshida, K., Jovanović, K., & Stein, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Aalborg University (DK)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Yoshida, Ken
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-03
Volume
96
Issue
1
Pages
47-55
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984905989
Cited by
49
References
19
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Undergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
intrafascicular electrodes, mudpuppy, spinal nerve roots, fine-wire electrodes, neurostimulation, compound action potential, cutaneous mechanoreceptors, evoked activity, nerve conduction velocity
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Electromyography, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Forelimb, Necturus, Nerve Crush, Neural Conduction, Physical Stimulation, Spinal Nerve Roots

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