Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31986501›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020

Toward guiding principles for the design of biologically-integrated electrodes for the central nervous system.

Cort H Thompson, Ti'Air E Riggins, Paras R Patel, Cynthia A Chestek, Wen Li, Erin Purcell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Capturing the Electrical Activity of all Cortical Neurons: Are Solutions Within Reach?Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. In vivo microelectrode arrays for neuroscience.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Cort H ThompsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6111-3488
Ti'Air E RigginsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.
Paras R PatelDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6146-718X
Cynthia A ChestekDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.
Wen LiDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6862-8561
Erin PurcellDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States of America.

Funding

Structural and Functional Plasticity Surrounding Implanted NeuroprosthesesR01NS107451 · NINDS · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PURCELL, ERIN K · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS107451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innovation in electrode design has produced a myriad of new and creative strategies for interfacing the nervous system with softer, less invasive, more broadly distributed sites with high spatial resolution. However, despite rapid growth in the use of implanted electrode arrays in research and clinical applications, there are no broadly accepted guiding principles for the design of biocompatible chronic recording interfaces in the central nervous system (CNS). Studies suggest that the architecture and flexibility of devices play important roles in determining effective tissue integration: device feature dimensions (varying from 'sub'- to 'supra'-cellular scales, <10 µm to  >100 µm), Young's modulus, and bending modulus have all been identified as key features of design. However, critical knowledge gaps remain in the field with respect to the underlying motivation for these designs: (1) a systematic study of the relationship between device design features (materials, architecture, flexibility), biointegration, and signal quality needs to be performed, including controls for interaction effects between design features, (2) benchmarks for success need to be determined (biological integration, recording performance, longevity, stability), and (3) user results, particularly those that champion a specific design or electrode modification, need to be replicated across laboratories. Finally, the ancillary effects of factors such as tethering, site impedance and insertion method need to be considered. Here, we briefly review observations to-date of device design effects on tissue integration and performance, and then highlight the need for comprehensive and systematic testing of these effects moving forward.

Indexed as

Central Nervous SystemElastic ModulusElectrodes, ImplantedMicroelectrodes

Identifiers

PMID31986501
PMCPMC7523527

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.