2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2013.07.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiological Challenges for Intracortical Electrodes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
57
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In one study, (Groothuis J, et al, 2014) it was suggested that a foreign body response to the presence of stimulating electrodes in the brain could result in electrical malfunction of the electrode and neuronal loss.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In one study, (Groothuis J, et al, 2014) it was suggested that a foreign body response to the presence of stimulating electrodes in the brain could result in electrical malfunction of the electrode and neuronal loss.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, prior work on neuroprosthetic devices appears to suggest that continuous delivery of DEX might not be necessary for long-term benefits. [43][44][45] Needle pricks performed 10 days after probe insertion induced clear K + spikes and corresponding glucose dips ( Figure 6): 87% of the fifteen K + spikes were accompanied by a quantifiable glucose dip (Table 1). Figure 6 confirms that the benefits of DEX retrodialysis for monitoring K + and glucose in the context of SD outlast the DEX retrodialysis itself.…”
Section: Sd-associated Transients 10 Days After Probe Insertion Micrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6] Insertion of electrodes into the brain leads to damage of blood vessels, capillaries, and cells, and breaches the highly selective blood-brain barrier. [7] Less destructive non-invasive neural recording techniques such as fMRI, fNIRS, and EEG avoid tissue reactions at the expense of spatial and temporal resolution and are not currently portable therefore they are not suitable for BMI applications. [8] Additionally, none of these methods are capable of stimulating neural tissue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[11] Initial damage sends the signal for microglial activation and migration to the implantation site, which, if tissue irritation continues, progresses until microglia form the dense glial sheath that is a familiar detriment to chronic neural communication. [7] Additionally, long-term breach of the highly-selective blood-brain barrier (BBB) eventually leads to secretion of neurotoxins that kill neurons proximal to the electrode, thereby diminishing the signal of interest permanently. [12] Contributing factors believed to adversely affect the quality of the electrode-tissue interface in a chronic time window include electrode size, [13,14] density of electrode material, [15] skull tethering mechanisms and associated micromotion of the implant, [16] and mechanical compliance of the electrode itself.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%