4.5 Article

Histological Confirmation of Myelinated Neural Filaments Within the Tip of the Neurotrophic Electrode After a Decade of Neural Recordings

期刊

FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00111

关键词

neurotrophic electrode; brainstem stroke; locked-in syndrome; single unit recordings; neurafilaments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Electrodes that provide brain to machine or computer interfacing must survive the lifetime of the person to be considered an acceptable prosthetic. The electrodes may be external such as with electroencephalographic (EEG), internal extracortical such as electrocorticographic (ECoG) or intracortical. Methods Most intracortical electrodes are placed close to the neuropil being recorded and do not survive years of recording. However, the Neurotrophic Electrode is placed within the cortex and the neuropil grows inside and through the hollow tip of the electrode and is thus trapped inside. Highly flexible coiled lead wires minimize the strain on the electrode tip. Histological analysis includes immunohistochemical detection of neurofilaments and the absence of gliosis. Results This configuration led to a decade long recording in this locked-in person. At year nine, the neural activity underwent conditioning experiments indicating that the neural activity was functional and not noise. This paper presents data on the histological analysis of the tissue inside the electrode tip after 13 years of implantation. Conclusion This paper is a singular example of histological analysis after a decade of recording. The histological analysis laid out herein is strong evidence that the brain can grow neurites into the electrode tip and record for a decade. This is profoundly important in the field of brain to machine or computer interfacing by implying that long term electrodes should incorporate some means of growing the neuropil into the electrode rather than placing the electrode into the neuropil.

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

4.5
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