Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34442547›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2021

Current Review of Optical Neural Interfaces for Clinical Applications.

Younghoon Park, Sung-Yun Park, Kyungsik Eom

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Younghoon ParkDepartment of Electronics Engineering, College of Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea.
Sung-Yun ParkDepartment of Electronics Engineering, College of Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea.
Kyungsik EomDepartment of Electronics Engineering, College of Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9918-8095

Funding

BK21PLUS Creative Human Resource Education and Research Programs for ICT Convergence in the 4th Industrial RevolutionNational Research Foundation of Korea 2020R1C1C1010505Pusan National University Research Grant 2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural interfaces, which enable the recording and stimulation of living neurons, have emerged as valuable tools in understanding the brain in health and disease, as well as serving as neural prostheses. While neural interfaces are typically based on electrical transduction, alternative energy modalities have been explored to create safe and effective approaches. Among these approaches, optical methods of linking neurons to the outside world have gained attention because light offers high spatial selectivity and decreased invasiveness. Here, we review the current state-of-art of optical neural interfaces and their clinical applications. Optical neural interfaces can be categorized into optical control and optical readout, each of which can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic approaches. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods and offer a comparison of relative performance. Future directions, including their clinical opportunities, are discussed with regard to the optical properties of biological tissue.

Indexed as

clinical applicationoptical functional imagingoptical neural interfaceoptical neuromodulation

Identifiers

PMID34442547
PMCPMC8400671

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.