Cited by 60Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringAnalog and Mixed-Signal Circuit DesignNeurological disorders and treatments

Thinking Small: Progress on Microscale Neurostimulation Technology

Open access
Pancrazio, Joseph J., Deku, Felix, Ghazavi, Atefeh, Stiller, Allison M., Rihani, Rashed, Frewin, Christopher L., Varner, Victor D., Gardner, Timothy J. +1 more·2017·Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface

Abstract

Objectives Neural stimulation is well-accepted as an effective therapy for a wide range of neurological disorders. While the scale of clinical devices is relatively large, translational, and pilot clinical applications are underway for microelectrode-based systems. Microelectrodes have the advantage of stimulating a relatively small tissue volume which may improve selectivity of therapeutic stimuli. Current microelectrode technology is associated with chronic tissue response which limits utility of these devices for neural recording and stimulation. One approach for addressing the tissue response problem may be to reduce physical dimensions of the device. "Thinking small" is a trend for the electronics industry, and for implantable neural interfaces, the result may be a device that can evade the foreign body response.Materials and methods This review paper surveys our current understanding pertaining to the relationship between implant size and tissue response and the state-of-the-art in ultrasmall microelectrodes. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Google Scholar.Results The literature review shows recent efforts to create microelectrodes that are extremely thin appear to reduce or even eliminate the chronic tissue response. With high charge capacity coatings, ultramicroelectrodes fabricated from emerging polymers, and amorphous silicon carbide appear promising for neurostimulation applications.Conclusion We envision the emergence of robust and manufacturable ultramicroelectrodes that leverage advanced materials where the small cross-sectional geometry enables compliance within tissue. Nevertheless, future testing under in vivo conditions is particularly important for assessing the stability of thin film devices under chronic stimulation.

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 · 10.1111/ner.12716

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • The work of Shannon, McCreery et al., and Cogan et al. established guidelines for stimulation levels regarded as safe for the stimulated tissues and the materials of the stimulating electrodes.

    “The work of Shannon (21), McCreery et al. (47, 48), and Cogan et al. (20, 49) established some guidelines for stimulation levels that are regarded as safe both for the stimulated tissues and the materials of the stimulating electrodes.”

    From Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Introduction’s “Electrical interface challenges for small microelectrodes” section (page unavailable) describes limits intended to protect both tissue and electrodes, including the electrode-material-dependent “water window,” and cites work by Cogan and McCreery. But our copy does not discuss Shannon or state that the three named researchers established the safety guidelines together. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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
Pancrazio, J. J., Deku, F., Ghazavi, A., Stiller, A. M., Rihani, R., Frewin, C. L., Varner, V. D., Gardner, T. J., & Cogan, S. F.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Pancrazio, Joseph J.
Venue
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
20
Issue
8
Pages
745-752
ISSN
1094-7159 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2765606955
Cited by
60
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR0011‐15‐2‐0017)
  • National Institutes of Health (U01NS090454‐01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Analog and Mixed-Signal Circuit Design
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
microelectrodes, ultramicroelectrodes, neurostimulation, implantable neural interfaces, foreign body reaction, implant size, thin film devices, amorphous silicon carbide, polymer coatings, charge capacity, neural recording
MeSH terms
Animals, Electrodes, Implanted, Equipment Design, Humans, Microelectrodes, Neurons

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