ReviewCritical reviews in biomedical engineering2011
Wireless microstimulators for neural prosthetics.
Review in Critical reviews in biomedical engineering, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A wireless millimetric magnetoelectric implant for the endovascular stimulation of peripheral nerves.Nature biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Magnetoelectric Materials for Miniature, Wireless Neural Stimulation at Therapeutic Frequencies.Neuron · 2020Article
- Toward Long-Term Communication With the Brain in the Blind by Intracortical Stimulation: Challenges and Future Prospects.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Polydimethylsiloxane-based optical waveguides for tetherless powering of floating microstimulators.Journal of biomedical optics · 2017Article
- A Sub-millimeter, Inductively Powered Neural Stimulator.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Temperature elevation profile inside the rat brain induced by a laser beam.Journal of biomedical optics · 2014Article
- Improved selectivity from a wavelength addressable device for wireless stimulation of neural tissue.Frontiers in neuroengineering · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the roadblocks in the field of neural prosthetics is the lack of microelectronic devices for neural stimulation that can last a lifetime in the central nervous system. Wireless multi-electrode arrays are being developed to improve the longevity of implants by eliminating the wire interconnects as well as the chronic tissue reactions due to the tethering forces generated by these wires. An area of research that has not been sufficiently investigated is a simple single-channel passive microstimulator that can collect the stimulus energy that is transmitted wirelessly through the tissue and immediately convert it into the stimulus pulse. For example, many neural prosthetic approaches to intraspinal microstimulation require only a few channels of stimulation. Wired spinal cord implants are not practical for human subjects because of the extensive flexions and rotations that the spinal cord experiences. Thus, intraspinal microstimulation may be a pioneering application that can benefit from submillimeter-size floating stimulators. Possible means of energizing such a floating microstimulator, such as optical, acoustic, and electromagnetic waves, are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.