Cited by 485Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringSpinal Cord Injury ResearchEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles

Open access
Ethier, C., Oby, E. R., Bauman, M. J., Miller, L. E.·2012·Nature

Abstract

Patients with spinal cord injury lack the connections between brain and spinal cord circuits that are essential for voluntary movement. Clinical systems that achieve muscle contraction through functional electrical stimulation (FES) have proven to be effective in allowing patients with tetraplegia to regain control of hand movements and to achieve a greater measure of independence in daily activities. In existing clinical systems, the patient uses residual proximal limb movements to trigger pre-programmed stimulation that causes the paralysed muscles to contract, allowing use of one or two basic grasps. Instead, we have developed an FES system in primates that is controlled by recordings made from microelectrodes permanently implanted in the brain. We simulated some of the effects of the paralysis caused by C5 or C6 spinal cord injury by injecting rhesus monkeys with a local anaesthetic to block the median and ulnar nerves at the elbow. Then, using recordings from approximately 100 neurons in the motor cortex, we predicted the intended activity of several of the paralysed muscles, and used these predictions to control the intensity of stimulation of the same muscles. This process essentially bypassed the spinal cord, restoring to the monkeys voluntary control of their paralysed muscles. This achievement is a major advance towards similar restoration of hand function in human patients through brain-controlled FES. We anticipate that in human patients, this neuroprosthesis would allow much more flexible and dexterous use of the hand than is possible with existing FES systems.

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 · 10.1038/nature10987

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • CNS-based neuroprostheses, or brain-machine interfaces, decode neural electrical activity to control robotic limbs or to stimulate muscles for restoring limb function.

    “CNS-based neuroprostheses, or brain–machine interfaces (BMIs), are systems whereby neural electrical activities are decoded and used to control robotic limbs [76, 89, 105] or to stimulate muscles for restoring limb function [35].”
  • All reported BMI experiments with human patients require the subject to be tethered percutaneously to a bench-top computer for neural signal acquisition and decoding.

    “Currently, all reported BMI experiments with human patients [26, 35, 57, 58, 150] require the subjects tethered percutaneously to a bench-top computer for neural signal acquisition and decoding.”

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: 2

  1. [15]Pohlmeyer EA IEEE 10th international conference on rehab robotics 454 458
  2. [18]Oby ER O'Weiss KG Statistical Signal Processing for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology 369 406 Academic Press, Elsevier 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ethier, C., Oby, E. R., Bauman, M. J., & Miller, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, L. E.
Venue
Nature
Published
2012-04-18
Volume
485
Issue
7398
Pages
368-371
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1988067967
Cited by
485
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 18
FWCI
20.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS053603, F31NS071737, #NS053603)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
brain-computer interface, functional electrical stimulation, paralysis, spinal cord injury, motor cortex, neural prostheses, hand grasping, rhesus monkeys, tetraplegia, hand function recovery, prosthetic hand control
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Hand, Macaca mulatta, Microelectrodes, Motor Cortex, Movement, Muscles, Nerve Block, Paralysis, Quadriplegia, Spinal Cord Injuries, Hand Strength, Prostheses and Implants

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