Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32457888›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Toward Standardization of Electrophysiology and Computational Tissue Strain in Rodent Intracortical Microelectrode Models.

Shreya Mahajan, John K Hermann, Hillary W Bedell, Jonah A Sharkins, Lei Chen, Keying Chen, Seth M Meade, Cara S Smith, Jacob Rayyan, He Feng and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Effects of Micromachining on Anti-oxidant Elution from a Mechanically-Adaptive Polymer.Journal of micromechanics and microengineering : structures, devices, and systems · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

15 authors.

Shreya MahajanDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
John K HermannDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Hillary W BedellDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Jonah A SharkinsVeteran Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Lei ChenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Keying ChenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Seth M MeadeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Cara S SmithDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Jacob RayyanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
He FengDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Youjoung KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Matthew A SchieferDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Dawn M TaylorDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Jeffrey R CapadonaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Evon S EreifejAdvanced Platform Technology Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.

Funding

Integrated Neural Engineering and Rehabilitation Training ProgramT32EB004314 · NIBIB · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey R Capadona, Robert F. Kirsch · 2004 to 2026
$6.1M
CD14 facilitates neural device integration and performanceR01NS082404 · NINDS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI CAPADONA, JEFFREY R · 2013 to 2016
$1.8M
Mimicking the Architecture and Modulus of Native Brain Tissue onto Neural Implants to Improve BiocompatibilityIK2RX002628 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI EREIFEJ, EVON S. · 2018 to 2021
–
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB004314NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS082404RRD VA IK1 RX001664RRD VA IK2 RX002628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress has been made in the field of neural interfacing using both mouse and rat models, yet standardization of these models' interchangeability has yet to be established. The mouse model allows for transgenic, optogenetic, and advanced imaging modalities which can be used to examine the biological impact and failure mechanisms associated with the neural implant itself. The ability to directly compare electrophysiological data between mouse and rat models is crucial for the development and assessment of neural interfaces. The most obvious difference in the two rodent models is size, which raises concern for the role of device-induced tissue strain. Strain exerted on brain tissue by implanted microelectrode arrays is hypothesized to affect long-term recording performance. Therefore, understanding any potential differences in tissue strain caused by differences in the implant to tissue size ratio is crucial for validating the interchangeability of rat and mouse models. Hence, this study is aimed at investigating the electrophysiological variances and predictive device-induced tissue strain. Rat and mouse electrophysiological recordings were collected from implanted animals for eight weeks. A finite element model was utilized to assess the tissue strain from implanted intracortical microelectrodes, taking into account the differences in the depth within the cortex, implantation depth, and electrode geometry between the two models. The rat model demonstrated a larger percentage of channels recording single unit activity and number of units recorded per channel at acute but not chronic time points, relative to the mouse model Additionally, the finite element models also revealed no predictive differences in tissue strain between the two rodent models. Collectively our results show that these two models are comparable after taking into consideration some recommendations to maintain uniform conditions for future studies where direct comparisons of electrophysiological and tissue strain data between the two animal models will be required.

Indexed as

brainelectrophysiologyfinite element modelintracortical microelectrodesrodent modeltissue strain

Identifiers

PMID32457888
PMCPMC7225268

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.