Cited by 76Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNeurological disorders and treatmentsPain Management and Treatment

The effects of chronic intracortical microstimulation on neural tissue and fine motor behavior

Open access
Rajan, Alexander T, Boback, Jessica L, Dammann, John F, Tenore, Francesco V, Wester, Brock A, Otto, Kevin J, Gaunt, Robert A, Bensmaia, Sliman J·2015·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: One approach to conveying sensory feedback in neuroprostheses is to electrically stimulate sensory neurons in the cortex. For this approach to be viable, it is critical that intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) causes minimal damage to the brain. Here, we investigate the effects of chronic ICMS on the neuronal tissue across a variety of stimulation regimes in non-human primates. We also examine each animal's ability to use their hand--the cortical representation of which is targeted by the ICMS--as a further assay of possible neuronal damage. APPROACH: We implanted electrode arrays in the primary somatosensory cortex of three Rhesus macaques and delivered ICMS four hours per day, five days per week, for six months. Multiple regimes of ICMS were delivered to investigate the effects of stimulation parameters on the tissue and behavior. Parameters included current amplitude (10-100 μA), pulse train duration (1, 5 s), and duty cycle (1/1, 1/3). We then performed a range of histopathological assays on tissue near the tips of both stimulated and unstimulated electrodes to assess the effects of chronic ICMS on the tissue and their dependence on stimulation parameters. MAIN RESULTS: While the implantation and residence of the arrays in the cortical tissue did cause significant damage, chronic ICMS had no detectable additional effect; furthermore, the animals exhibited no impairments in fine motor control. SIGNIFICANCE: Chronic ICMS may be a viable means to convey sensory feedback in neuroprostheses as it does not cause significant damage to the stimulated tissue.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/12/6/066018

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • The first bidirectional brain-machine interface allowed a non-human primate's motor cortex signal to control a cursor while S1 stimulation provided sensory feedback, though learning was required for mapping.

    “Another important breakthrough is the first bidirectional brain-machine interface in which a signal from the motor cortex of a non-human primate was able to control the cursor, while stimulation is applied simultaneously to the brain area S1 to give sensory feedback on the movements, though the primate had to go through a learning process for mapping the afferent interface (Rajan et al., 2015; Tab”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Rajan et al., 2015

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says intracortical stimulation can elicit somatosensory percepts that guide primate behavior. It does not describe a first bidirectional interface, cursor control from motor-cortex signals, simultaneous S1 feedback, or learning the afferent mapping; the paper instead investigates the effects of chronic stimulation on neural tissue and hand use. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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
Rajan, A. T., Boback, J. L., Dammann, J. F., Tenore, F. V., Wester, B. A., Otto, K. J., Gaunt, R. A., & Bensmaia, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2015-10-19
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
066018
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W1770516688
Cited by
76
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
intracortical microstimulation, chronic stimulation, neural prostheses, sensory feedback, primary somatosensory cortex, rhesus monkeys, histopathology, fine motor control, stimulation parameters, current amplitude, pulse duration, duty cycle, electrode arrays
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Microelectrodes, Motor Skills, Sensory Receptor Cells, Somatosensory Cortex, 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