Cited by 187Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringHearing Loss and RehabilitationNeurological disorders and treatments

Chronic intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of cat sensory cortex using the Utah intracortical electrode array

Rousche, P.J., Normann, R.A.·1999·IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

In an effort to assess the safety and efficacy of focal intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of cerebral cortex with an array of penetrating electrodes as might be applied to a neuroprosthetic device to aid the deaf or blind, we have chronically implanted three trained cats in primary auditory cortex with the 100-electrode Utah Intracortical Electrode Array (UIEA). Eleven of the 100 electrodes were hard-wired to a percutaneous connector for chronic access. Prior to implant, cats were trained to "lever-press" in response to pure tone auditory stimulation. After implant, this behavior was transferred to "lever-presses" in response to current injections via single electrodes of the implanted arrays. Psychometric function curves relating injected charge level to the probability of response were obtained for stimulation of 22 separate electrodes in the three implanted cats. The average threshold charge/phase required for electrical stimulus detection in each cat was, 8.5, 8.6, and 11.6 nC/phase respectively, with a maximum charge/phase of 26 nC/phase and a minimum of 1.5 nC/phase thresholds were tracked for varying time intervals, and seven electrodes from two cats were tracked for up to 100 days. Electrodes were stimulated for no more than a few minutes each day. Neural recordings taken from the same electrodes before and after multiple electrical stimulation sessions were very similar in signal/noise ratio and in the number of recordable units, suggesting that the range of electrical stimulation levels used did not damage neurons in the vicinity of the electrodes. Although a few early implants failed, we conclude that ICMS of cerebral cortex to evoke a behavioral response can be achieved with the penetrating UIEA. Further experiments in support of a sensory cortical prosthesis based on ICMS are warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/86.750552

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rousche, P. J., & Normann, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Utah (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
1999-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
56-68
ISSN
1063-6528 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2131461939
Cited by
187
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, San Francisco
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
intracortical microstimulation, primary auditory cortex, neuroprosthetics, auditory prosthesis, stimulation threshold, chronic implantation, cats, deafness
MeSH terms
Animals, Audiometry, Behavior, Animal, Cats, Cerebral Cortex, Conditioning, Operant, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Equipment Design, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Microelectrodes, Monitoring, Physiologic, Implants, Experimental

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