Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29057282›Full record

ArticleNeurophotonics2017

CerebraLux: a low-cost, open-source, wireless probe for optogenetic stimulation.

Robel Dagnew, Yin-Ying Lin, Jerikko Agatep, Michael Cheng, Andrew Jann, Viola Quach, Michelle Monroe, Ganeev Singh, Ani Minasyan, Joshua Hakimian and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurophotonics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Electromagnetic Regulation of Cell Activity.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2019
    Review
  8. Review
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robel DagnewUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Yin-Ying LinUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Jerikko AgatepUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Michael ChengUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Andrew JannUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Viola QuachUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Michelle MonroeUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Ganeev SinghUniversity of California, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Ani MinasyanUniversity of California, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Joshua HakimianUniversity of California, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Theodore KeeUniversity of California, Department of Bioengineering, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Jesse CushmanUniversity of California, Department of Psychology, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Wendy WalwynUniversity of California, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, California, United States.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

The Role of Striosome Neurons in Mediating Opiod RewardP50DA005010 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FANSELOW, MICHAEL S · 1987 to 2021
$30.7M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA005010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of optogenetics to activate or inhibit neurons is an important toolbox for neuroscientists. Several optogenetic devices are in use. These range from wired systems where the optoprobe is physically connected to the light source by a tether, to wireless systems that are remotely controlled. There are advantages and disadvantages of both; the wired systems are lightweight but limit movement due to the tether, and wireless systems allow unrestricted movement but may be heavier than wired systems. Both systems can be expensive to install and use. We have developed a low cost, wireless optogenetic probe, CerebraLux, built from off-the-shelf components. CerebraLux consists of two separable units; an optical component consisting of the baseplate holding the fiber-optic in place and an electronic component consisting of a light-emitting diode, custom-printed circuit board, an infrared receiver, microcontroller, and a rechargeable, lightweight lithium polymer battery. The optical component (0.5 g) is mounted on the head permanently, whereas the electronic component (2.3 g) is removable and is applied for each experiment. We describe the device, provide all designs and specifications, the methods to manufacture and use the device

Indexed as

infraredlow costopen sourceoptogeneticswireless optogenetic probe

Identifiers

PMID29057282
PMCPMC5635269
OpenAlexW2761835842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.