CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringMuscle activation and electromyography studiesVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Comparative analysis of transverse intrafascicular multichannel, longitudinal intrafascicular and multipolar cuff electrodes for the selective stimulation of nerve fascicles

Open access
Badia, Jordi, Boretius, Tim, Andreu, David, Azevedo-Coste, Christine, Stieglitz, Thomas, Navarro, Xavier·2011·Journal of Neural Engineering
DOI 10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036023
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This comparative study evaluates TIME, LIFE, and cuff electrodes for selective stimulation in the rat sciatic nerve.

Verified 2026-10-05 · 6 references not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In acute rat sciatic nerve experiments, a transversely inserted multichannel intrafascicular electrode (TIME) selectively activated three hindlimb muscles through different active sites, whereas multipolar cuff electrodes selectively activated only two and longitudinal intrafascicular electrodes (LIFE) generally only one. TIME also required lower stimulation currents than cuff electrodes and achieved higher device-level selectivity.

Key findings

  • TIME selectively activated plantar, gastrocnemius, and tibialis anterior muscles via separate active sites; multipolar cuff stimulation selectively activated only gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior, and LIFE did not selectively activate more than one muscle in the implanted tibial fascicle in four of five cases.
  • Initial muscle activation occurred at 20–100 µA with TIME and LIFE, while cuff thresholds were three to six times higher; for plantar, the mean 5% threshold was 58 ± 7 µA with TIME versus 336 ± 32 µA with cuff.
  • At activation levels above 30% of maximal CMAP, TIME reached selectivity indices above 0.6 for all three muscles (plantar 0.619 ± 0.070, gastrocnemius 0.657 ± 0.064, tibialis anterior 0.760 ± 0.050), while LIFE had no tibialis anterior activation and cuff had low plantar selectivity (0.330 ± 0.007).
  • Repositioning a TIME by about 0.1 mm improved the selectivity index for plantar from 0.501 to 1 and for gastrocnemius from 0.538 to 1, with tibialis anterior changing from 0.908 to 0.975.

Methods

  • Acute experiments in adult Sprague-Dawley rats implanted the rat sciatic nerve with TIME (n = 8 across tibial and peroneal fascicles; n = 3 tibial-only TIME-B), LIFE (n = 5 tibial implants, plus one peroneal implant), or a 12-pole multipolar cuff (n = 5).
  • Stimulation used monophasic rectangular pulses at 0.5 Hz, 10 µs width, and 20–300 µA for TIME/LIFE or 20–800 µA for cuff; compound muscle action potentials were recorded from plantar, gastrocnemius medialis, and tibialis anterior muscles and normalized to maximal responses.
  • Selectivity was quantified per active site and per device using a selectivity index, with comparisons by ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests.

Limitations

  • The authors state that only acute implants were tested and that chronic experiments are needed because thresholds and selectivity may change with time and accommodation inside the nerve.
  • The authors note that the rat sciatic nerve is small and that applying TIME to larger nerves or humans would require a longer intraneural segment and more active contacts.
  • Evident from the text: group sizes were small (n = 3–8 per condition), and the cuff electrode was implanted without aligning its tripolar sites to specific nerve fascicles.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036023

Cites

43 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 41 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    The CMAP amplitudes elicited by the TIME corresponding to the maximum SI were of a functional magnitude.

    “The CMAP amplitudes elicited by the TIME corresponding to the maximum SI were of a functional magnitude (Paternostro-Sluga et al 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Paternostro-Sluga et al 2008 source

      The available study text describes manual muscle-strength testing and grip-force measurements in patients with radial palsy; it does not address CMAP amplitudes elicited at the TIME corresponding to maximum SI. Searches for the quoted phrase and for compound muscle action potentials and stimulation intensity found no relevant passage. The indexed passages provide no section or page number for this point. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 2

    A single TIME device selectively activated all three tested muscles (PL, GM and TA) when different active sites were used, at both the interfascicular and intrafascicular levels.

    “TIME allowed us to selectively activate the three tested muscles when stimulating through different active sites of one device, both at inter- and intrafascicular levels”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · p. 6 · plain
      “The TIME device allowed us to selectively activate the PL, GM and TA muscles when stimulating through different active sites.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 6

    The TA muscle was not activated by tf-LIFEs implanted in the tibial nerve.

    “The TA muscle was not activated by tf-LIFEs inserted in the tibial nerve”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 2

    The LIFE electrode did not selectively activate more than one muscle within the nerve fascicle in which it was implanted.

    “LIFE did not activate selectively more than one muscle in the implanted nerve fascicle.”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · p. 6 · plain
      “with the tf-LIFE it was not possible to activate selectively more than one muscle (either PL or GM for the implants in the tibial nerve) in four cases out of five.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 3.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 7

    The device selectivity index (SId) was significantly higher for TIMEs than for LIFEs and cuff electrodes.

    “The results for the SId show that TIMEs had a SId significantly higher than LIFEs and cuff electrodes (figure 5(A)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • May combine two claims. 22

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    Bipolar transverse stimulation in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the nerve trunk increases the selectivity of the cuff between fascicles and allows improved fine tuning of nerve recruitment with respect to longitudinal tripolar stimulation.

    “theoretical considerations have suggested that bipolar transverse stimulation in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the nerve trunk increases the selectivity of the cuff between fascicles and allows improved fine tuning of nerve recruitment with respect to the longitudinal tripolar stimulation used in our study (Deurloo et al 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Deurloo et al 2003 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    Several indices of selectivity have been proposed as a measure of the potential functionality that nerve interfaces can offer.

    “Several indices of selectivity have been proposed as a measure of the potential functionality that nerve interfaces can offer (Veraart et al 1993, Branner et al 2001, Schiefer et al 2008, Dowden et al 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Veraart et al 1993 source
    • cites Branner et al 2001 source
    • cites Schiefer et al 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 6

    When a tf-LIFE was implanted in the peroneal nerve, stimulation activated only the TA muscle and not the PL or GM muscles.

    “contrarily in the case of implantation within the peroneal nerve, stimulation through the tf-LIFE only activated the TA muscle, but not the PL and GM muscles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3.1. Thresholds for stimulation · p. 7

    The minimum stimulation thresholds of the tf-LIFE for the PL muscle were higher than for the GM muscle, but not significantly so.

    “tf-LIFE minimum threshold values for the PL muscle were higher than for GM muscle although not significantly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 2

    The multipolar cuff electrode selectively activated only two of the three muscles (GM and TA), and only at the interfascicular level.

    “selective activation using multipolar cuff (with a longitudinal tripolar stimulation configuration) was only possible for two muscles, at the interfascicular level”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · p. 6 · plain
      “Selective activation using a multipolar cuff electrode was only possible for two muscles, GM and TA”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    No implant of LIFE or TIME restricted to the tibial nerve could activate the TA muscle in the safe range of current injected, but stimulation of the TA was possible with all the TIME implants in the full sciatic nerve.

    “No implant of LIFE or TIME restricted to the tibial nerve could activate in the safe range of current injected the TA muscle innervated by the peroneal nerve branch, but stimulation of the TA was possible with all the TIME implants in the full sciatic nerve”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    The LIFE elicited stimulation only in the implanted nerve fascicle, and only in one animal could stimulate selectively the GM and PL muscles.

    “whereas the LIFE elicited stimulation only in the implanted nerve fascicle, and only in one animal could stimulate selectively the GM and PL muscles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 4.1. Stimulation threshold for activation · p. 11

    Large currents of stimulation eliciting 95% of the maximum CMAP amplitude are high enough to spread all over the nerve and thus selectivity of stimulation is lost.

    “Large currents of stimulation eliciting 95% of the maximum CMAP amplitude are high enough to spread all over the nerve and, thus, selectivity of stimulation is lost.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    Muscle recruitment curves as function of current amplitude were typical for the stimulation strategies used.

    “Muscle recruitment curves as function of current amplitude were typical for the stimulation strategies used (Grill and Mortimer 1996b, Yoshida et al 2000, Navarro et al 2001, 2007, Polasek et al 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Grill and Mortimer 1996b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yoshida et al 2000 source
    • cites Navarro et al 2001, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 7

    With the implanted LIFE, selectivity was good for the GM muscle, moderate for the PL muscle, and absent for the TA muscle.

    “With the implanted LIFE good selectivity was obtained for the GM, moderate for the PL, but no activation (except from some artefactual responses due to cross-talk in the recording at high levels of stimulation; see figure 4(B)) of the TA muscle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 6

    As stimulus intensity increased, the CMAP amplitude grew to its maximum and the stimulus spread to surrounding fascicles, activating two of the three tested muscles.

    “By progressively increasing the intensity of the stimulus, the amplitude of the CMAP increased to reach the maximal value (i.e. activation of the whole muscle); however, the stimulus spread to other surrounding fascicles, therefore activating two of the three muscles tested.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 4.1. Stimulation threshold for activation · p. 11

    With the TIME there were no differences between the thresholds for the three muscles tested, while with cuff and LIFE devices thresholds for the PL muscle were always higher than for the GM muscle.

    “With the TIME there were no differences between the thresholds for the three muscles tested, while with cuff and LIFE devices thresholds for the PL muscle were always higher than for the GM muscle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    The TIME was effective to induce selectivity at interfascicular and intrafascicular levels, as demonstrated by selective activation of the three muscles tested with different active sites in one transversally inserted electrode.

    “The results of this study show that the TIME was effective to induce selectivity at interfascicular and intrafascicular levels, as demonstrated by the selective activation of the three muscles tested (TA, GM and PL muscles) with different active sites in one transversally inserted electrode.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 13

    The LIFE allows only selectivity at the intrafascicular level, and the multipolar cuff electrode only interfascicular selectivity.

    “In contrast, the LIFE allows only selectivity at the intrafascicular level, and the multipolar cuff electrode only interfascicular selectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion · p. 11

    Both types of intraneural electrodes, the LIFE and the TIME, are biocompatible and do not induce significant nerve damage after implantation, similar to the cuff electrodes.

    “The results indicated that both types of intraneural electrodes, the LIFE (Lago et al 2007) and the TIME (Badia et al 2011) are biocompatible and do not induce significant nerve damage after implantation, similar to the cuff electrodes (Rodr´ ıguez et al 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lago et al 2007 source
    • cites Badia et al 2011 source
    • cites Rodríguez et al 2000 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 13

    For implants in larger nerves of bigger animals or humans, the intraneural segment of the TIME can be designed longer and with more active contacts, therefore increasing the number of nerve fascicles that may be selectively interfaced.

    “For implants in larger nerves of bigger animals or humans, the intraneural segment of the TIME can be designed longer and with more active contacts, therefore increasing the number of nerve fascicles that may be selectively interfaced with respect to the rat model used in this study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2.2. Surgical procedures · p. 5

    The cuff was implanted without special attention to aligning the tripolar sites with distinct nerve fascicles.

    “The cuff was implanted without paying special attention to the alignment of the tripolar sites with distinct nerve fascicles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2.3. Neural stimulatot and nerve stimulation protocol · p. 5

    The same experimental protocol was repeated for all rats and electrodes.

    “The same experimental protocol was repeated for all the rats and electrodes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    The amplitude of the CMAPs correlates with the force produced and with the joint torque.

    “The amplitude of the CMAPs correlates with the force produced and with the joint torque, as shown in previous studies (Navarro et al 2001, Singh et al 2000, Stieglitz et al 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Navarro et al 2001
    • cites Singh et al 2000 source
    • cites Stieglitz et al 2003 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2.2. Surgical procedures · p. 4

    Electrode insertion was monitored under a dissection microscope to ensure correct placement and adequate location of electrode sites in the nerve.

    “The insertion was monitored under a dissection microscope to ensure correct placement and that the electrode sites were located adequately in the nerve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    Selectivity is a key aspect for enhanced applications of neural electrodes in neuroprosthetic devices intended to provide FES.

    “The issue of selectivity is one of the key aspects for enhanced applications of neural electrodes in neuroprosthetic devices intended to provide functional electrical stimulation (FES) as a means for restoring or improving neural functions which have been lost due to injuries or degeneration of the nervous system (Stein et al 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stein et al 1992

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    Introduction of a subthreshold steering current may restrict the region of excitation of the nerve trunk, thus improving the selectivity of stimulation.

    “Introduction of a subthreshold steering current may restrict the region of excitation of the nerve trunk, thus improving the selectivity of stimulation (Gorman and Mortimer 1986, Grill and Mortimer 1996a, Navarro et al 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gorman and Mortimer 1986

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Grill and Mortimer 1996a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Navarro et al 2001

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2.2. Surgical procedures · p. 4

    The experimental protocols were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

    “All procedures were performed with the rats under pentobarbital anesthesia (40 mg kg -1 i.p.) and following protocols approved by the Ethical Committee of the Universitat Aut` onoma de Barcelona.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 13

    The TIME may be appropriate for FES applications at mid and proximal levels of the nerves, reducing the number of electrodes to be surgically implanted and thus minimizing the risk of damage and the complexity of the interface connections.

    “The findings of this study suggest that the TIME may be appropriate for FES applications at mid and proximal levels of the nerves, reducing the number of electrodes to be surgically implanted and thus minimizing the risk of damage and the complexity of the interface connections.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 3. Results · p. 6

    At low stimulation intensity, activation of a single muscle was detected, which is attributable to close contact between one electrode site and that muscle's nerve fascicle.

    “At low intensity stimulation the activation of one muscle was detected by the recording of CMAPs of low amplitude; selective stimulation of one muscle could be detected, due to the close contact of one electrode site with the corresponding muscular nerve fascicle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1. Stimulation threshold for activation · p. 11

    Minimizing the injected charge is important for prevention of electrode corrosion and may prevent stimulus-induced neural damage.

    “Minimizing the injected charge is an important consideration for prevention of electrode corrosion (Robblee and Rose 1990), which depends on the charge density on the electrode surface, and may prevent stimulus-induced neural damage (Mc Creery et al 1992).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Robblee and Rose 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mc Creery et al 1992

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Abstract · p. 2

    Intrafascicular electrodes (TIME and LIFE) excite only the nerve fibers within the fascicle in which they are implanted and do not spread excitation across the perineurial barrier to nearby fascicles, at least at low stimulation intensities.

    “intrafascicular electrodes (LIFE and TIME) provide excitation circumscribed to the implanted fascicle”
    • Also stated in: § 3. Results · p. 6 · boosted
      “These observations prove that an intrafascicular electrode provides excitation circumscribed to the nerve fibers contained in that fascicle, but does not extend stimulation to other nearby fascicles crossing the perineurial barrier, at least at low intensity stimulation levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The rat sciatic nerve is a valid model for evaluating the selective stimulation properties of nerve electrodes intended for neuroprosthetic applications.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    By repositioning the TIME short distances in the transversal direction, the selectivity of single active sites may be considerably improved.

    “By repositioning the TIME short distances in the transversal direction, the selectivity of single active sites may be considerably improved”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    To achieve a selective interfacing with several nerve fascicles, a corresponding number of LIFEs needs to be implanted, whereas only one TIME may provide the same results.

    “though the LIFE has a high degree of selectivity (Yoshida et al 2000), to achieve a selective interfacing with several nerve fascicles a corresponding number of LIFEs needs to be implanted, whereas only one TIME may provide the same results”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yoshida et al 2000 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction · p. 3

    The TIME is designed to be inserted transversally into the nerve and to address several fascicles or subgroups of fibers with a single device.

    “A new electrode concept of a transversal intrafascicular multichannel electrode (TIME) is intended to be implanted transversally in the nerve and address several fascicles or subgroups of nerve fibers with one device (Boretius et al 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boretius et al 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1. Stimulation threshold for activation · p. 11

    The motor fibers innervating the intrinsic muscles of the foot are distributed in a large central area in comparison with the motor fibers innervating the GM muscle, which are grouped at the periphery of the tibial nerve.

    “The motor fibers innervating the intrinsic muscles of the foot are distributed in a large central area in comparison with the motor fibers innervating the GM muscle, which are grouped at the periphery of the tibial nerve (Badia et al 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Badia et al 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    The SId calculated by (2) takes into account the potential selectivity of a single electrode with multiple contacts to activate a set of target muscles.

    “The SId calculated by (2) takes into account the potential selectivity of a single electrode with multiple contacts to activate a set of target muscles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    The selection of a suitable electrode has to take into account that the goal is achieving the highest selectivity for a high number of nerve fascicles with the least invasiveness and potential damage to the nerve.

    “The selection of a suitable electrode has to take into account that the goal is achieving the highest selectivity for a high number of nerve fascicles with the least invasiveness and potential damage to the nerve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    The recordings of the evoked CMAPs are useful to know the degree of activation in each of the muscles recorded under varying stimulus conditions.

    “The recordings of the evoked CMAPs are useful to know the degree of activation in each of the muscles recorded under varying stimulus conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given
    § 4. Discussion · p. 11

    The three types of electrode used need a surgical procedure for implantation.

    “Regarding the issue of invasivity and potential nerve damage, the three types of electrode used need a surgical procedure for implantation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    Another approach to selective activation of multiple muscles with a single implant is the use of microelectrodes that penetrate the implanted nerves.

    “Another approach to selective activation of multiple muscles with a single implant is the use of microelectrodes that penetrate the implanted nerves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2. Selectivity of stimulation · p. 12

    True multipolar stimulation with current distributions among all the poles of the TIME may provide further selectivity and robustness against misplacement.

    “True multipolar stimulation with current distributions among all the poles of the TIME may provide further selectivity and robustness against misplacement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    For restoration of motor function of the limbs, coordinated control over many muscles is necessary.

    “For restoration of motor function of the limbs, coordinated control over many muscles is necessary.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning
    § 4. Discussion · p. 9

    A neural interface is needed that can selectively activate different fascicles in the nerve that each innervate a different muscle.

    “Therefore, a neural interface is needed that can selectively activate different fascicles in the nerve that each innervate a different muscle.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
39 of 39

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rat sciatic nerve is a valid model for evaluating the selective stimulation properties of nerve electrodes intended for neuroprosthetic applications.

    “The electrodes were implanted on the rat sciatic nerve, and the activation of gastrocnemius, plantar and tibialis anterior muscles was recorded by EMG signals.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cuff electrode is less invasive with respect to the nerve than the intraneural LIFE and TIME.

    “although the cuff electrode is less invasive with respect to the nerve than the intraneural LIFE and TIME.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rat sciatic nerve model is representative of larger nerves in bigger animals or humans for the purpose of evaluating electrode selectivity.

    “For implants in larger nerves of bigger animals or humans, the intraneural segment of the TIME can be designed longer and with more active contacts, therefore increasing the number of nerve fascicles that may be selectively interfaced with respect to the rat model used in this study.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Other electrode designs used within peripheral nerve are less specific but allow access to a greater proportion of the nerve via electrical stimulation.

    “other electrode designs used within peripheral nerve are less specific but allow access to a greater proportion of the nerve via electrical stimulation [33].”

    From Fascicle specific targeting for selective peripheral nerve stimulation (2019) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Introduction (p. 3) says intrafascicular positioning enhances selectivity, while TIME’s distributed sites let it access several fascicles. The Selectivity of stimulation section (p. 12) reports that TIME had higher selectivity than both LIFE and cuff electrodes. Thus, the intraneural design with broader access was not less selective in this comparison; the less-selective cuffs are placed around, not within, the nerve. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In a study comparing multipolar cuff electrode, LIFE, and TIME, TIME was the only electrode to selectively stimulate at both interfascicular and intra-fascicular levels, whereas LIFE stimulated selectively at the intra-fascicular level and cuff electrode allowed selectivity at the interfascicular level.

    “In a study comparing the multipolar cuff electrode, LIFE, and TIME, TIME was found to be the only electrode to selectively stimulate at both interfascicular and intra-fascicular levels, whereas LIFE was stimulating selectively at the intra-fascicular level and cuff electrode was allowing selectivity in interfascicular level [155].”

    From Interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of a neuroprosthetic limb: a review (2020) · cites this paper as [155]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Badia, J., Boretius, T., Andreu, D., Azevedo-Coste, C., Stieglitz, T., & Navarro, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Corresponding author
Stieglitz, Thomas
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2011-05-11
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
036023
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
DOI
10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036023
OpenAlex
W2049483283
Cited by
227
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobre Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
cuff electrodes, selective nerve stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, sciatic nerve, neuroprosthetics, electromyography, gastrocnemius, tibialis anterior, plantar muscles, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Equipment Design, Muscle Contraction, Sciatic Nerve, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Muscle, Skeletal, Equipment Failure Analysis, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-01.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-01.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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