Cited by 35Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNerve injury and regenerationVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Fascicular nerve stimulation and recording using a novel double-aisle regenerative electrode

Open access
Delgado-Martínez, I, Righi, M, Santos, D, Cutrone, A, Bossi, S, D’Amico, S, Del Valle, J, Micera, S +1 more·2017·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Objective . As artificial prostheses become more refined, they are most often used as a therapeutic option for hand amputation. By contrast to extra- or intraneural interfaces, regenerative nerve electrodes are designed to enable electrical interfaces with regrowing axonal bundles of injured nerves, aiming to achieve high selectivity for recording and stimulation. However, most of the developed designs pose an obstacle to the regrowth mechanisms due to low transparency and cause impairment to the nerve regeneration. Approach . Here we present the double-aisle electrode, a new type of highly transparent, non-obstructive regenerative electrode. Using a double-side thin-film polyimide planar multi-contact electrode, two nerve fascicles can regenerate without physical impairment through two electrically isolated aisles. Main results . We show that this electrode can be used to selectively record and stimulate fascicles, acutely as well as chronically, and allow regeneration in nerve gaps of several millimeters without impairment. Significance . This multi-aisle regenerative electrode may be suitable for neuroprosthetic applications, such as prostheses, for the restoration of hand function after amputation or severe nerve injuries.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2552/aa6bac

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • In a double-aisle regenerative electrode, selective stimulation and recording of tibial and fibular nerve fascicles were possible both acutely and chronically, with a slight decrease in selectivity after 3 months.

    “Selective stimulation and recording of the fascicles were possible both acutely and chronically, with a slight decrease in selectivity after 3 months.”

    From Interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of a neuroprosthetic limb: a review (2020) · cites this paper as [124]

    Section 3.2 reports selective stimulation and recording in acute tests, and section 3.4 reports that both capabilities were maintained three months after implantation. The timing of the decrease is imprecise: section 3.4 says selectivity was lower at six months than at three months, not that a decrease was observed at three months. The copy does not characterize the decrease as slight. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delgado-Martínez, I., Righi, M., Santos, D., Cutrone, A., Bossi, S., D’Amico, S., Del Valle, J., Micera, S., & Navarro, X.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (IT)
  • National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (IT)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Corresponding author
Navarro, X
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2017-05-12
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
046003
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2604523147
Cited by
35
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ENEA Open Archive (National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • TERCEL (RD12/0019/0011)
  • FEDER
  • CIBERNED (CB06/05/1105)
  • Seventh Framework Programme (280778)
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
neurostimulation, nerve regeneration, transparent electrodes, hand amputation, neuroprosthetics, nerve injury, chronic electrode implantation
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Microelectrodes, Miniaturization, Nerve Regeneration, Peripheral Nerves, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

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