Cited by 144Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design

A micromachined silicon sieve electrode for nerve regeneration applications

Open access
Akin, T., Najafi, K., Smoke, R.H., Bradley, R.M.·1994·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

A micromachined silicon sieve electrode has been developed and fabricated to record from and stimulate axons/fibers of the peripheral nervous system by utilizing the nerve regeneration principle. The electrode consists of a 15-microns-thick silicon support rim, a 4-microns-thick diaphragm containing different size holes to allow nerve regeneration, thin-film iridium recording/stimulating sites, and an integrated silicon ribbon cable, all fabricated using boron etch-step and silicon micromachining techniques. The thin diaphragm is patterned using reactive ion etching to obtain different size holes with diameters as small as 1 micron and center-center spacings as small as 10 microns. The holes are surrounded by 100-200 microns 2 anodized iridium oxide sites, which can be used for both recording and stimulation. These sites have impedances of less than 100 k omega @ 1 kHz and charge delivery capacities in the 4-6 mC/cm2 range. The fabrication process is single-sided, has high yield, requires only five masks, and is compatible with integrated multilead silicon ribbon cables. The electrodes were implanted between the cut ends of peripheral taste fibers of rats (glossopharyngeal nerve), and axons functionally regenerated through holes, responding to chemical, mechanical, and thermal stimuli.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/10.284958

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 degree of successful regeneration through regenerative electrodes greatly differs between in vivo experiments.

    “the degree of successful regeneration through the electrodes greatly differs between in vivo experiments (Akin et al., 1994; Srinivasan et al., 2015).”

    From Update on Peripheral Nerve Electrodes for Closed-Loop Neuroprosthetics (2018) · cites this paper as Akin et al., 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akin, T., Najafi, K., Smoke, R. H., & Bradley, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
1994-04
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
305-313
ISSN
0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020307886
Cited by
144
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC00059)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
Keywords
nerve regeneration, peripheral nerve stimulation, peripheral nerve recording, iridium oxide, thin film electrodes, silicon micromachining, reactive ion etching, glossopharyngeal nerve, axon regeneration, implanted electrodes
MeSH terms
Animals, Electrodes, Implanted, Equipment Design, Glossopharyngeal Nerve, Materials Testing, Microelectrodes, Nerve Regeneration, Silicon, 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