4.2 Article

Electrocorticographic changes in field potentials following natural somatosensory percepts in humans

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 237, 期 5, 页码 1155-1167

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-019-05495-1

关键词

Somatosensory; Brain Computer Interface (BCI); Brain Machine Interface (BMI); Electrocorticography; Cortical Stimulation

资金

  1. Cal-BRAIN: A Neurotechnology Program for California
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health [KL2TR001854]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R25 NS099008-01]
  4. Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF)
  5. Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Brain-machine Interface Center at Caltech
  6. Boswell Foundation
  7. Della Martin Foundation
  8. University of Southern California Neurorestoration Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveRestoration of somatosensory deficits in humans requires a clear understanding of the neural representations of percepts. To characterize the cortical response to naturalistic somatosensation, we examined field potentials in the primary somatosensory cortex of humans.MethodsFour patients with intractable epilepsy were implanted with subdural electrocorticography (ECoG) electrodes over the hand area of S1. Three types of stimuli were applied, soft-repetitive touch, light touch, and deep touch. Power in the alpha (8-15Hz), beta (15-30Hz), low-gamma (30-50Hz), and high-gamma (50-125Hz) frequency bands were evaluated for significance.ResultsSeventy-seven percent of electrodes over the hand area of somatosensory cortex exhibited changes in these bands. High-gamma band power increased for all stimuli, with concurrent alpha and beta band power decreases. Earlier activity was seen in these bands in deep touch and light touch compared to soft touch.ConclusionsThese findings are consistent with prior literature and suggest a widespread response to focal touch, and a different encoding of deeper pressure touch than soft touch.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据