ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015
Biological and bionic hands: natural neural coding and artificial perception.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Event-related potential (P300): the effects of levetiracetam in cognitive performance.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021Trial
- Spatiotemporal encoding of touch signals in the human somatosensory and motor cortices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Unisensory processing of interleaving memristive nanowires enabling multimodal sensing at human-scale resolution.Nature materials · 2026Article
- Neuroscience of human ventral lateral thalamic nucleus related to movement and movement disorders.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Review
- A worldwide research overview of Artificial Proprioception in prosthetics.PLOS digital health · 2025Review
- In vivo microelectrode arrays for neuroscience.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025Article
- Towards Precise Synthetic Neural Codes: High-dimensional Stimulation with Flexible Electrodes.Npj flexible electronics · 2025Article
- Direct Prosthesis Force Control with Tactile Feedback May Connect with the Internal Model.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Neural population dynamics reveals disruption of spinal circuits' responses to proprioceptive input during electrical stimulation of sensory afferents.Cell reports · 2024Article
- Utilization of peripheral nerve feedback at a preconscious level.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Restoration of sensory information via bionic hands.Nature biomedical engineering · 2023Review
- Peripheral neurostimulation for encoding artificial somatosensations.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Review
- The neural mechanisms of manual dexterity.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2021Review
- Playing the piano with a robotic third thumb: assessing constraints of human augmentation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Human Somatosensory Processing and Artificial Somatosensation.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2021Review
- A Psychometric Platform to Collect Somatosensory Sensations for Neuroprosthetic Use.Frontiers in medical technology · 2021Article
- A comprehensive model-based framework for optimal design of biomimetic patterns of electrical stimulation for prosthetic sensation.Journal of neural engineering · 2020Article
- Decoding hand kinematics from population responses in sensorimotor cortex during grasping.Journal of neural engineering · 2020Article
- The frequency of cortical microstimulation shapes artificial touch.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- A computational outlook on neurostimulation.Bioelectronic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first decade and a half of the twenty-first century brought about two major innovations in neuroprosthetics: the development of anthropomorphic robotic limbs that replicate much of the function of a native human arm and the refinement of algorithms that decode intended movements from brain activity. However, skilled manipulation of objects requires somatosensory feedback, for which vision is a poor substitute. For upper-limb neuroprostheses to be clinically viable, they must therefore provide for the restoration of touch and proprioception. In this review, I discuss efforts to elicit meaningful tactile sensations through stimulation of neurons in somatosensory cortex. I focus on biomimetic approaches to sensory restoration, which leverage our current understanding about how information about grasped objects is encoded in the brain of intact individuals. I argue that not only can sensory neuroscience inform the development of sensory neuroprostheses, but also that the converse is true: stimulating the brain offers an exceptional opportunity to causally interrogate neural circuits and test hypotheses about natural neural coding.
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.