Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27830790›Full record

ArticleNature2016

A brain-spine interface alleviating gait deficits after spinal cord injury in primates.

Marco Capogrosso, Tomislav Milekovic, David Borton, Fabien Wagner, Eduardo Martin Moraud, Jean-Baptiste Mignardot, Nicolas Buse, Jerome Gandar, Quentin Barraud, David Xing and 11 more

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 282 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
282citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
35.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04512690 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Restoration of Arm and Hand Function in People With Subcortical Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorLee Fisher, PhDRan2021 to 2025Enrolled7ConditionsStroke, Brain Diseases, Central Nervous System Diseases, Nervous System DiseasesArmsEpidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the cervical spinal cord
NCT04632290 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Brain-controlled Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneRan2021 to 2028Enrolled3ConditionsSpinal Cord InjuriesArmsSTIMO-BSI system implantation, ARC-BSI Lumbar System
NCT04956770 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

STIMO-PARKINSON: Study on Feasibility of Targeted Epidural Spinal Stimulation (TESS) to Improve Mobility in Patients With Parkinson's Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorJocelyne BlochRan2021 to 2026Enrolled2ConditionsParkinson DiseaseArmsImplantation surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

282 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 629 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. In conversation with Grégoire Courtine.Nature neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Full-Stack Architectures for Intelligent Brain-Computer Interfaces.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review of Recent Advances in Implantable Brain-Computer Interfaces for the Restoration of Motor Function in Patients With Paralysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  20. Review

222 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Marco CapogrossoCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Tomislav MilekovicCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
David BortonCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Fabien WagnerCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Eduardo Martin MoraudCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Institute of Bioengineering, School of Bioengineering, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jean-Baptiste MignardotCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas BuseMedtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Jerome GandarCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Quentin BarraudCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
David XingSchool of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Elodie ReyCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Simone DuisCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Yang JianzhongMotac Neuroscience Ltd, Manchester, UK.
Wai Kin D KoMotac Neuroscience Ltd, Manchester, UK.
Qin LiMotac Neuroscience Ltd, Manchester, UK.
Peter DetempleMainz Institute for Microtechnology, Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology (ICT-IMM), Mainz, Germany.
Tim DenisonMedtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Silvestro MiceraCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Institute of Bioengineering, School of Bioengineering, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Erwan BezardMotac Neuroscience Ltd, Manchester, UK.
Jocelyne BlochCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Grégoire CourtineCenter for Neuroprosthetics and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHMotac Neuroscience (United Kingdom) · GBBrown University · USMedtronic (United States) · USUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CHWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering · CHFraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology · DEUniversité de Bordeaux · FR

Funding

European Research Council 261247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury disrupts the communication between the brain and the spinal circuits that orchestrate movement. To bypass the lesion, brain-computer interfaces have directly linked cortical activity to electrical stimulation of muscles, and have thus restored grasping abilities after hand paralysis. Theoretically, this strategy could also restore control over leg muscle activity for walking. However, replicating the complex sequence of individual muscle activation patterns underlying natural and adaptive locomotor movements poses formidable conceptual and technological challenges. Recently, it was shown in rats that epidural electrical stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord can reproduce the natural activation of synergistic muscle groups producing locomotion. Here we interface leg motor cortex activity with epidural electrical stimulation protocols to establish a brain-spine interface that alleviated gait deficits after a spinal cord injury in non-human primates. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were implanted with an intracortical microelectrode array in the leg area of the motor cortex and with a spinal cord stimulation system composed of a spatially selective epidural implant and a pulse generator with real-time triggering capabilities. We designed and implemented wireless control systems that linked online neural decoding of extension and flexion motor states with stimulation protocols promoting these movements. These systems allowed the monkeys to behave freely without any restrictions or constraining tethered electronics. After validation of the brain-spine interface in intact (uninjured) monkeys, we performed a unilateral corticospinal tract lesion at the thoracic level. As early as six days post-injury and without prior training of the monkeys, the brain-spine interface restored weight-bearing locomotion of the paralysed leg on a treadmill and overground. The implantable components integrated in the brain-spine interface have all been approved for investigational applications in similar human research, suggesting a practical translational pathway for proof-of-concept studies in people with spinal cord injury.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural ProsthesesAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalElectric StimulationElectric Stimulation TherapyGaitGait Disorders, NeurologicLegLocomotionLumbosacral RegionMacaca mulattaMaleMicroelectrodesMotor CortexParalysis

Identifiers

PMID27830790
PMCPMC5108412
OpenAlexW2549361605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.