Cited by 59Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesPain Management and Treatment

The effect of chronic intracortical microstimulation on the electrode–tissue interface

Open access
Chen, Kevin H, Dammann, John F, Boback, Jessica L, Tenore, Francesco V, Otto, Kevin J, Gaunt, Robert A, Bensmaia, Sliman J·2014·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Somatosensation is critical for effective object manipulation, but current upper limb prostheses do not provide such feedback to the user. For individuals who require use of prosthetic limbs, this lack of feedback transforms a mundane task into one that requires extreme concentration and effort. Although vibrotactile motors and sensory substitution devices can be used to convey gross sensations, a direct neural interface is required to provide detailed and intuitive sensory feedback. The viability of intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) as a method to deliver feedback depends in part on the long-term reliability of implanted electrodes used to deliver the stimulation. The objective of the present study is to investigate the effects of chronic ICMS on the electrode-tissue interface. APPROACH: We stimulate the primary somatosensory cortex of three Rhesus macaques through chronically implanted electrodes for 4 h per day over a period of six months, with different electrodes subjected to different regimes of stimulation. We measure the impedance and voltage excursion as a function of time and of ICMS parameters. We also test the sensorimotor consequences of chronic ICMS by having animals grasp and manipulate small treats. MAIN RESULTS: We show that impedance and voltage excursion both decay with time but stabilize after 10-12 weeks. The magnitude of this decay is dependent on the amplitude of the ICMS and, to a lesser degree, the duration of individual pulse trains. Furthermore, chronic ICMS does not produce any deficits in fine motor control. SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that chronic ICMS has only a minor effect on the electrode-tissue interface and may thus be a viable means to convey sensory feedback in neuroprosthetics.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/11/2/026004

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • ICMS pulse trains transferred through implanted electrodes (UEAs) in a monkey can restore sensory feedback.

    “In other studies, ICMS pulse trains have been transferred through implanted electrodes (UEAs) in a monkey for restoration of sensory feedback (Bensmaia and Miller, 2014; Chen et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2015).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2014

    The Methods (Subjects, Arrays, and Stimulation protocol; page unavailable) describe ICMS pulse trains delivered through implanted UEAs in rhesus macaques. The Introduction identifies sensory feedback as a potential application, but the Results (Behavioral effects of chronic microstimulation; page unavailable) assess grasping for adverse effects, not whether stimulation restored sensory feedback. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 1

  1. [12]O’Doherty JE 2011 Active tactile exploration using a brain–machine–brain interface Nature 479 228– 31 21976021 PMC3236080

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, K. H., Dammann, J. F., Boback, J. L., Tenore, F. V., Otto, K. J., Gaunt, R. A., & Bensmaia, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2014-02-06
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
026004
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2001010190
Cited by
59
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r03dc009339-03)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03-DC009339)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
intracortical microstimulation, electrode-tissue interface, chronic stimulation, primary somatosensory cortex, voltage excursions, neuroprosthetics, sensory feedback, upper limb prosthesis, rhesus monkeys, fine motor control
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Microelectrodes, Somatosensory Cortex, Time Factors, Hand Strength

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