Cited by 15Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural dynamics and brain function

Thin-film, high-density micro-electrocorticographic decoding of a human cortical gyrus

Open access
Muller, Leah, Felix, Sarah, Shah, Kedar G., Lee, Kye, Pannu, Satinderpall, Chang, Edward F.·2016·2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

Abstract

High-density electrocorticography (ECoG) arrays are promising interfaces for high-resolution neural recording from the cortical surface. Commercial options for high-density arrays are limited, and historically tradeoffs must be made between spatial coverage and electrode density. However, thin-film technology is a promising alternative for generating electrode arrays capable of large area coverage and high channel count, with resolution on the order of cortical columns in the functional surface unit of a human gyrus. Here, we evaluate the sensing performance of a high-density thin-film 128-electrode array designed specifically for recording the distributed neural activity of a single human cortical gyrus. We found robust field potential responses throughout the superior temporal gyrus evoked by speech sounds, and clear phonetic feature selectivity at the resolution of 2 mm inter-electrode distance. Decoding accuracy improved with increasing density of electrodes over all three patients tested. Thin-film ECoG has significant potential for high-density neural interface applications at the scale of a human gyrus.

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 · 10.1109/embc.2016.7591001

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • Approaches to increase density and lower invasiveness of ECoG are currently being developed for humans and animal models.

    “Different approaches to increase the density and lower the invasiveness of ECoG are currently being developed for use in humans and animal models176–182.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [176]

    The Introduction and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) describe a high-density thin-film ECoG array tested in humans and note related arrays used in animal studies. The paper describes the arrays as safe and conformal, but does not establish that the human approach lowers ECoG invasiveness; that part of the claim is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Higher-density cortical sampling via increased surface or penetrating electrodes has been shown to increase decoding model performance.

    “For example, higher-density cortical sampling — via an increased number of surface or penetrating electrodes — has been shown to increase the performance of decoding models14–16,175,176.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [176]

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

  • The speech neuroprosthesis

    Silva, A. B., Littlejohn, K. T., Liu, J. R., Moses, D. A., & Chang, E. F. (2024) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-024-00819-9 · Cited by 103 · see citing works

    “For example, higher-density cortical sampling — via an increased number of surface or penetrating electrodes — has been shown to increase the performance of decoding models 14–16, 175 , 176 .”
    Self-citation

Authors
Muller, L., Felix, S., Shah, K. G., Lee, K., Pannu, S., & Chang, E. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US)
Venue
2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-08
Volume
2016
Pages
1528-1531
ISSN
2375-7477 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2533606008
Cited by
15
References
13
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC012379)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007618)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
thin film electrodes, electrode arrays, superior temporal gyrus, neural decoding, electrode density, neural interfaces
MeSH terms
Electrocorticography, Cerebral Cortex, Electrodes, Implanted, Electroencephalography, Humans

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