Cited by 622Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsElectrochemical Analysis and Applications

Brain Tissue Responses to Neural Implants Impact Signal Sensitivity and Intervention Strategies

Open access
Kozai, Takashi D. Y., Jaquins-Gerstl, Andrea S., Vazquez, Alberto L., Michael, Adrian C., Cui, X. Tracy·2015·ACS Chemical Neuroscience

Abstract

Implantable biosensors are valuable scientific tools for basic neuroscience research and clinical applications. Neurotechnologies provide direct readouts of neurological signal and neurochemical processes. These tools are generally most valuable when performance capacities extend over months and years to facilitate the study of memory, plasticity, and behavior or to monitor patients’ conditions. These needs have generated a variety of device designs from microelectrodes for fast scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) and electrophysiology to microdialysis probes for sampling and detecting various neurochemicals. Regardless of the technology used, the breaching of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) to insert devices triggers a cascade of biochemical pathways resulting in complex molecular and cellular responses to implanted devices. Molecular and cellular changes in the microenvironment surrounding an implant include the introduction of mechanical strain, activation of glial cells, loss of perfusion, secondary metabolic injury, and neuronal degeneration. Changes to the tissue microenvironment surrounding the device can dramatically impact electrochemical and electrophysiological signal sensitivity and stability over time. This review summarizes the magnitude, variability, and time course of the dynamic molecular and cellular level neural tissue responses induced by state-of-the-art implantable devices. Studies show that insertion injuries and foreign body response can impact signal quality across all implanted central nervous system (CNS) sensors to varying degrees over both acute (seconds to minutes) and chronic periods (weeks to months). Understanding the underlying biological processes behind the brain tissue response to the devices at the cellular and molecular level leads to a variety of intervention strategies for improving signal sensitivity and longevity.

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 · 10.1021/cn500256e

Cites

230 of 230 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?

  • High power density, constrained by size, is essential to avoid tissue damage and foreign body responses that can affect signal quality across central nervous system sensors over acute and chronic time frames.

    “High power density, constrained by size, is essential to avoid tissue damage and foreign body responses, which can further affect the signal quality across all central nervous system sensors over both acute and chronic time frames (Bazaka and Jacob, 2012; Kozai et al., 2015).”

    From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Kozai et al., 2015

    The Size section says smaller implants can reduce tissue strain and inflammatory responses, while the Introduction says insertion injury and tissue responses can impair signal quality. The paper also describes effects over acute and chronic periods. It does not say that high power density is essential to prevent those effects; the size discussion concerns the implant’s physical dimensions, not its power density. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intracortical microelectrodes face a decline in recording quality over time.

    “Intracortical microelectrodes, used in applications ranging from recent advances in speech-to-text with ALS patients (Willett et al., 2023), allowing primates to play pong (Play Studio, n.d.) to clinical trials for motor deficit treatments (Gilja et al., 2015) face a decline in recording quality over time (Chestek et al., 2011; Jorfi et al., 2014; Kozai et al., 2015).”

    From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Kozai et al., 2015

  • Common sources of recording failures in the CNS include demyelination of adjacent neurons, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier around the implant site, neuronal loss, degradation of the electrode, and formation of a glial sheath around implanted electrodes.

    “Common sources of recording failures in the CNS include demyelination of the adjacent neurons, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier around the implant site, neuronal loss, degradation of the electrode, and formation of a glial sheath around implanted electrodes.64,65”

    From Regenerative Electrode Interfaces for Neural Prostheses. (2016) · cites this paper as [65]

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Edell D. J.; Toi V. V.; McNeil V. M.; Clark L. D. (1992) Factors influencing the biocompatibility of insertable silicon microshafts in cerebral cortex. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 39, 635– 643. 1601445
  2. Suzuki T., Mabuchi K., and Takeuchi S. (2003) A 3D flexible parylene probe array for multichannel neural recording, In Neural Engineering, Proceedings of the 1st International IEEE EMBS, pp 154– 156, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ.
  3. Zhong Y.; Bellamkonda R. V. (2007) Dexamethasone-coated neural probes elicit attenuated inflammatory response and neuronal loss compared to uncoated neural probes. Brain Res. 1148, 15– 27. 17376408 PMC1950487

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kozai, T. D. Y., Jaquins-Gerstl, A. S., Vazquez, A. L., Michael, A. C., & Cui, X. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh , , , , , ,
Corresponding author
Kozai, Takashi D. Y.
Venue
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
Published
2014-12-29
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
48-67
ISSN
1948-7193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090157379
Cited by
622
References
230
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Chemical Neuroscience (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K01 1K01NS066131, R01 5R01NS062019)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Electrochemistry › Electrochemical Analysis and Applications
Keywords
neural implants, implantable biosensors, blood-brain barrier disruption, foreign body reaction, glial activation, signal sensitivity, signal stability, microelectrodes, microdialysis probe, fast-scan cyclic voltammetry, electrophysiology, neurodegeneration, chronic implantation, central nervous system, neuroinflammation
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Chemistry, Humans, Microelectrodes, 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