Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32998116›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020

Spatially confined responses of mouse visual cortex to intracortical magnetic stimulation from micro-coils.

Sang Baek Ryu, Angelique C Paulk, Jimmy C Yang, Mehran Ganji, Shadi A Dayeh, Sydney S Cash, Shelley I Fried, Seung Woo Lee

Open access · greenAbstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Microfabrication Technologies for Nanoinvasive and High-Resolution Magnetic Neuromodulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Micro-magnetic stimulation of primary visual cortex induces focal and sustained activation of secondary visual cortex.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sang Baek RyuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1466-871X
Angelique C PaulkDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Jimmy C YangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Mehran GanjiDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.
Shadi A DayehDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.
Sydney S CashDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Shelley I FriedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Seung Woo LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4070-809X
Harvard University · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Investigating the Response of CNS Neurons to Electric and Magnetic StimulationR01NS110575 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI FRIED, SHELLEY · 2019 to 2023
$3.4M
Micro-coil implants for cortical activationU01NS099700 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI FRIED, SHELLEY · 2016 to 2018
$2.9M
Bringing Light to Functional Mapping in Resective NeurosurgeryDP2EB029757 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DAYEH, SHADI · 2019 to 2019
$2.4M
Optimization of micro-coil arrays for precise stimulation of visual cortexR01EY029022 · NEI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI FRIED, SHELLEY · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY029022NIBIB NIH HHS DP2 EB029757NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS110575NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS099700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectrical stimulation via microelectrodes implanted in cortex has been suggested as a potential treatment for a wide range of neurological disorders. Despite some success however, the effectiveness of conventional electrodes remains limited, in part due to an inability to create specific patterns of neural activity around each electrode and in part due to challenges with maintaining a stable interface. The use of implantable micro-coils to magnetically stimulate the cortex has the potential to overcome these limitations because the asymmetric fields from coils can be harnessed to selectively activate some neurons, e.g. vertically-oriented pyramidal neurons while avoiding others, e.g. horizontally-oriented passing axons. In vitro experiments have shown that activation is indeed confined with micro-coils but their effectiveness in the intact brain of living animals has not been evaluated. APPROACH: To assess the efficacy of stimulation, a 128-channel custom recording microelectrode array was positioned on the surface of the visual cortex (ECoG) in anesthetized mice and responses to magnetic and electric stimulation were compared. Stimulation was delivered from electrodes or micro-coils implanted through a hole in the center of the recording array at a rate of 200 pulses per second for 100 ms. MAIN

resultsBoth electric and magnetic stimulation reliably elicited cortical responses, although activation from electric stimulation was spatially expansive, often extending more than 1 mm from the stimulation site, while activation from magnetic stimulation was typically confined to a ∼300 µm diameter region around the stimulation site. Results were consistent for stimulation of both cortical layer 2/3 and layer 5 as well as across a range of stimulus strengths. SIGNIFICANCE: The improved focality with magnetic stimulation suggests that the effectiveness of cortical stimulation can be improved. Improved focality may be particularly attractive for cortical prostheses that require high spatial resolution, e.g. devices that target sensory cortex, as it may lead to improved acuity.

Indexed as

Visual CortexAnimalsElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedMagnetic PhenomenaMiceMicroelectrodesNeurons

Identifiers

PMID32998116
PMCPMC8923513
OpenAlexW3090690865

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.