ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2021
Fascicle localisation within peripheral nerves through evoked activity recordings: A comparison between electrical impedance tomography and multi-electrode arrays.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal interference stimulation of peripheral nerves induces functionally diverse limb movements revealed by automated pose estimation and unsupervised behavioral analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Fibers in smaller fascicles have lower activation thresholds with cuff electrodes due to thinner perineurium and smaller cross-sectional area.Journal of neural engineering · 2023Article
- A combined cuff electrode array for organ-specific selective stimulation of vagus nerve enabled by Electrical Impedance Tomography.Frontiers in medical technology · 2023Article
- Organotopic organization of the porcine mid-cervical vagus nerve.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Deep-learning segmentation of fascicles from microCT of the human vagus nerve.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Closed-Loop Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases: State of the Art and Future Directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Mapping the functional anatomy and topography of the cardiac autonomic innervation for selective cardiac neuromodulation using MicroCT.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Article
- Computational modelling of nerve stimulation and recording with peripheral visceral neural interfaces.Journal of neural engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of understanding of fascicular organisation in peripheral nerves limits the potential of vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Two promising methods may be employed to identify the functional anatomy of fascicles within the nerve: fast neural electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and penetrating multi-electrode arrays (MEA). These could provide a means to image the compound action potential within fascicles in the nerve. NEW
methodWe compared the ability to localise fascicle activity between silicon shanks (SS) and carbon fibre (CF) multi-electrode arrays and fast neural EIT, with micro-computed tomography (MicroCT) as an independent reference. Fast neural EIT in peripheral nerves was only recently developed and MEA technology has been used only sparingly in nerves and not for source localisation. Assessment was performed in rat sciatic nerves while evoking neural activity in the tibial and peroneal fascicles.
resultsRecorded compound action potentials were larger with CF compared to SS (∼700 μV vs ∼300 μV); however, background noise was greater (6.3 μV vs 1.7 μV) leading to lower SNR. Maximum spatial discrimination between Centres-of-Mass of fascicular activity was achieved by fast neural EIT (402 ± 30 μm) and CF MEA (414 ± 123 μm), with no statistical difference between MicroCT (625 ± 17 μm) and CF (p > 0.05) and between CF and EIT (p > 0.05). Compared to CF MEAs, SS MEAs had a lower discrimination power (103 ± 51 μm, p < 0.05). COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsEIT and CF MEAs showed localisation power closest to MicroCT. Silicon MEAs adopted in this study failed to discriminate fascicle location. Re-design of probe geometry may improve results.
conclusionsNerve EIT is an accurate tool for assessment of fascicular position within nerves. Accuracy of EIT and CF MEA is similar to the reference method. We give technical recommendations for performing multi-electrode recordings in nerves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.