Cited by 635Spinal Cord Injury ResearchNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

A brain–spine interface alleviating gait deficits after spinal cord injury in primates

Open access
Capogrosso, Marco, Milekovic, Tomislav, Borton, David, Wagner, Fabien, Moraud, Eduardo Martin, Mignardot, Jean-Baptiste, Buse, Nicolas, Gandar, Jerome +13 more·2016·Nature

Abstract

Spinal cord injury disrupts the communication between the brain and the spinal circuits that orchestrate movement. To bypass the lesion, brain-computer interfaces have directly linked cortical activity to electrical stimulation of muscles, and have thus restored grasping abilities after hand paralysis. Theoretically, this strategy could also restore control over leg muscle activity for walking. However, replicating the complex sequence of individual muscle activation patterns underlying natural and adaptive locomotor movements poses formidable conceptual and technological challenges. Recently, it was shown in rats that epidural electrical stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord can reproduce the natural activation of synergistic muscle groups producing locomotion. Here we interface leg motor cortex activity with epidural electrical stimulation protocols to establish a brain-spine interface that alleviated gait deficits after a spinal cord injury in non-human primates. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were implanted with an intracortical microelectrode array in the leg area of the motor cortex and with a spinal cord stimulation system composed of a spatially selective epidural implant and a pulse generator with real-time triggering capabilities. We designed and implemented wireless control systems that linked online neural decoding of extension and flexion motor states with stimulation protocols promoting these movements. These systems allowed the monkeys to behave freely without any restrictions or constraining tethered electronics. After validation of the brain-spine interface in intact (uninjured) monkeys, we performed a unilateral corticospinal tract lesion at the thoracic level. As early as six days post-injury and without prior training of the monkeys, the brain-spine interface restored weight-bearing locomotion of the paralysed leg on a treadmill and overground. The implantable components integrated in the brain-spine interface have all been approved for investigational applications in similar human research, suggesting a practical translational pathway for proof-of-concept studies in people with spinal cord injury.

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/nature20118

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Recruiting dorsal root entry zones with preprogrammed spatiotemporal sequences replicates the physiological activation of leg motor pools underlying standing and walking.

    “In turn, recruiting these dorsal root entry zones with preprogrammed spatiotemporal sequences replicates the physiological activation of leg motor pools underlying standing and walking4,5,11,13,14.”

    From Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The paper reports that electrodes targeting dorsal-root entry points produced spinal activation correlated with the natural flexion and extension hotspots during locomotion (Abstract; page unavailable). Extended Data Figure 2 describes pre-programmed stimulation protocols, but the Methods say they were triggered by decoded gait states. The copy supports an approximation of activation during walking, not replication of physiological motor-pool activation during standing. (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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [33]Hochberg LR Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm Nature 2012 485 372 375 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7398/abs/nature11076.html -supplementary-information 22596161 PMC3640850
  2. [37]Marieb EN Human Anatomy & Physiology Hardcover 6th edition edn Pearson Education 2003
  3. [38]Kuypers HGJM Comprehensive Physiology John Wiley & Sons, Inc 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Capogrosso, M., Milekovic, T., Borton, D., Wagner, F., Moraud, E. M., Mignardot, J.-B., Buse, N., Gandar, J., Barraud, Q., Xing, D., Rey, E., Duis, S., Jianzhong, Y., Ko, W. K. D., Li, Q., Detemple, P., Denison, T., Micera, S., Bezard, E., Bloch, J., & Courtine, G.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Motac Neuroscience (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Fraunhofer Institute for Microengineering and Microsystems (DE)
  • Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (IT)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Courtine, Grégoire
Venue
Nature
Published
2016-11
Volume
539
Issue
7628
Pages
284-288
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2549361605
Cited by
635
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
64.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • European Commission (331602, 258654)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (261247)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
spinal cord injury, epidural stimulation, motor cortex, gait recovery, rhesus monkeys, corticospinal tract lesions, leg paralysis, locomotor recovery, intracortical microelectrode arrays, spinal cord stimulation, non-invasive brain-computer interface
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Electric Stimulation, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Gait, Leg, Locomotion, Lumbosacral Region, Macaca mulatta, Male, Microelectrodes, Motor Cortex, Paralysis, Spinal Cord, Spinal Cord Injuries, Reproducibility of Results, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Neural Prostheses, Wireless Technology, 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