Cited by 157Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringElasticity and Material ModelingCellular Mechanics and Interactions

In Vivo Penetration Mechanics and Mechanical Properties of Mouse Brain Tissue at Micrometer Scales

Open access
Sharp, A.A., Ortega, A.M., Restrepo, D., Curran-Everett, D., Gall, K.·2009·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Substantial advancement in the understanding of the neuronal basis of behavior and the treatment of neurological disorders has been achieved via the implantation of various devices into the brain. To design and optimize the next generation of neuronal implants while striving to minimize tissue damage, it is necessary to understand the mechanics of probe insertion at relevant length scales. Unfortunately, a broad-based understanding of brain-implant interactions at the necessary micrometer scales is largely missing. This paper presents a generalizable description of the micrometer-scale penetration mechanics and material properties of mouse brain tissue in vivo. Cylindrical stainless steel probes were inserted into the cerebral cortex and olfactory bulb of mice. The effects of probe size, probe geometry, insertion rate, insertion location, animal age, and the presence of the dura and pia on the resulting forces were measured continuously throughout probe insertion and removal. Material properties (modulus, cutting force, and frictional force) were extracted using mechanical analysis. The use of rigid, incompressible, cylindrical probes allows for a general understanding of how probe design and insertion methods influence the penetration mechanics of brain tissue in vivo that can be applied to the quantitative design of most future implantable devices.

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/tbme.2008.2003261

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • As implants fail to move together with tissue, compression and sliding along the interface cause damage to surrounding tissue.

    “As implants fail to move together with tissue, the compression and sliding along the interface causes damage to the surrounding tissue (Goldstein and Salcman, 1973; Sharp et al., 2009; Barrese et al., 2016).”

    From Foreign Body Reaction to Implanted Biomaterials and Its Impact in Nerve Neuroprosthetics (2021) · cites this paper as Sharp et al., 2009

    The Results (Section III.A and III.C; page unavailable) describe tissue compression during probe insertion and friction between the probe and tissue during removal. The Discussion (Section IV.B; page unavailable) links insertion to tissue tearing. The paper does not establish that implants fail to move with tissue or that compression and sliding from that mismatch damage surrounding tissue after implantation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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
Sharp, A. A., Ortega, A. M., Restrepo, D., Curran-Everett, D., & Gall, K.
Affiliations
  • Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2009-01
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
45-53
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2143732412
Cited by
157
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC-00566, R01DC000566)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS054161, R21NS054161)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Elasticity and Material Modeling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
Keywords
brain tissue mechanics, probe insertion, cerebral cortex, olfactory bulb, cutting force, friction force, probe geometry, dura mater, pia mater, mouse brain, implant design
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Dura Mater, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Olfactory Bulb, Pia Mater, Stainless Steel, Stress, Mechanical, Poisson Distribution, Prostheses and Implants, Mice, Elastic Modulus

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