Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27979758›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2017

A testbed for optimizing electrodes embedded in the skull or in artificial skull replacement pieces used after injury.

JingLe Jiang, Amar R Marathe, Jennifer C Keene, Dawn M Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

JingLe JiangDepartment of Neurosciences, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States.
Amar R MaratheDepartment of Neurosciences, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States; Human Research and Engineering Directorate, US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005, United States.
Jennifer C KeeneDepartment of Neurosciences, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States.
Dawn M TaylorDepartment of Neurosciences, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States. Electronic address: dawn.taylor@case.edu.

Funding

Intra vs. extracortical command signals to restore six dimensional hand movementsR01NS058871 · NINDS · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI TAYLOR, DAWN MARIE · 2008 to 2012
$1.5M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS058871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCustom-fitted skull replacement pieces are often used after a head injury or surgery to replace damaged bone. Chronic brain recordings are beneficial after injury/surgery for monitoring brain health and seizure development. Embedding electrodes directly in these artificial skull replacement pieces would be a novel, low-risk way to perform chronic brain monitoring in these patients. Similarly, embedding electrodes directly in healthy skull would be a viable minimally-invasive option for many other neuroscience and neurotechnology applications requiring chronic brain recordings. NEW

methodWe demonstrate a preclinical testbed that can be used for refining electrode designs embedded in artificial skull replacement pieces or for embedding directly into the skull itself. Options are explored to increase the surface area of the contacts without increasing recording contact diameter to maximize recording resolution.

resultsEmbedding electrodes in real or artificial skull allows one to lower electrode impedance without increasing the recording contact diameter by making use of conductive channels that extend into the skull. The higher density of small contacts embedded in the artificial skull in this testbed enables one to optimize electrode spacing for use in real bone. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING

methodsFor brain monitoring applications, skull-embedded electrodes fill a gap between electroencephalograms recorded on the scalp surface and the more invasive epidural or subdural electrode sheets.

conclusionsEmbedding electrodes into the skull or in skull replacement pieces may provide a safe, convenient, minimally-invasive alternative for chronic brain monitoring. The manufacturing methods described here will facilitate further testing of skull-embedded electrodes in animal models.

Indexed as

Electrodes, ImplantedAnimalsCraniocerebral TraumaElectroencephalographyImaging, Three-DimensionalMacaca mulattaMagnetic Resonance ImagingOssicular ReplacementSkullTomography, X-Ray ComputedBrain-machine interface (BMI)Brain monitoringCranioplastyElectrocorticogram (ECoG)ImpedanceSkull-embedded electrodesTraumatic brain injury (TBI)

Identifiers

PMID27979758
PMCPMC5253247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.