ArticleNature communications2024
Creation of a biological sensorimotor interface for bionic reconstruction.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Neural Interfaces for Bidirectional Sensory Restoration in Limb Prostheses: Current Evidence and Clinical Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A myoneural actuator with engineered biophysics for implantable biohybrid systems.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Self-Powered Neuromorphic Touch Sensors Based on Triboelectric Devices: Current Approaches and Open Challenges.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- Multidimensional advances in neural interface technology for peripheral nerve repair: From material innovation to clinical translation.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- The Next Frontier in Neuroprosthetics: Integration of Biomimetic Somatosensory Feedback.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Axonal regeneration and innervation ratio following supercharged end-to-side nerve transfer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromuscular control of bionic arms has constantly improved over the past years, however, restoration of sensation remains elusive. Previous approaches to reestablish sensory feedback include tactile, electrical, and peripheral nerve stimulation, however, they cannot recreate natural, intuitive sensations. Here, we establish an experimental biological sensorimotor interface and demonstrate its potential use in neuroprosthetics. We transfer a mixed nerve to a skeletal muscle combined with glabrous dermal skin transplantation, thus forming a bi-directional communication unit in a rat model. Morphological analyses indicate reinnervation of the skin, mechanoreceptors, NMJs, and muscle spindles. Furthermore, sequential retrograde labeling reveals specific sensory reinnervation at the level of the dorsal root ganglia. Electrophysiological recordings show reproducible afferent signals upon tactile stimulation and tendon manipulation. The results demonstrate the possibility of surgically creating an interface for both decoding efferent motor control, as well as encoding afferent tactile and proprioceptive feedback, and may indicate the way forward regarding clinical translation of biological communication pathways for neuroprosthetic applications.
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.