Fascicle localisation within peripheral nerves through evoked activity recordings: A comparison between electrical impedance tomography and multi-electrode arrays.
Fascicle localisation within peripheral nerves through evoked activity recordings: A comparison between electrical impedance tomography and multi-electrode arrays.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109140
复制
发表时间：
2021-07-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Holder D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ravagli E;Mastitskaya S;Thompson N;Welle EJ;Chestek CA;Aristovich K;Holder D
根据MicroCT参考扫描评价EIT和MEA的小束定位能力。在大鼠坐骨神经中测试基于硅柄和碳纤维的MEA。快速神经EIT和多电极阵列可以检测神经内的诱发活动。EIT和碳纤维MEA比硅MEA具有更好的源定位能力。提供了将MEA插入神经的技术建议。对周围神经中的分支组织缺乏了解限制了迷走神经刺激治疗的潜力。两种有前途的方法可以用来确定神经内的神经束的功能解剖：快速神经电阻抗断层扫描（EIT），和穿透多电极阵列（MEA）。这些可以提供一种方法来成像神经束内的复合动作电位。我们比较了硅柄（SS）和碳纤维（CF）多电极阵列和快速神经EIT之间定位神经束活动的能力，以微计算机断层扫描（MicroCT）作为独立参考。外周神经中的快速神经EIT只是最近开发的，MEA技术仅在神经中少量使用，而不是用于源定位。在大鼠坐骨神经中进行评估，同时引起胫骨和腓神经束的神经活动。与SS相比，CF记录的复合动作电位更大（约700 μV vs约300 μV）;然而，背景噪声更大（6.3 μV vs 1.7 μV），导致SNR更低。通过快速神经EIT（402 ± 30 μm）和CF MEA（414 ± 123 μm）实现了分支活动质心之间的最大空间区分，MicroCT（625 ± 17 μm）和CF（p > 0.05）之间以及CF和EIT（p> 0.05）之间无统计学差异。与CF MEA相比，SS MEA具有较低的辨别能力（103 ± 51 μm，p < 0.05）。EIT和CF MEA显示定位能力最接近MicroCT。本研究中采用的硅MEA未能区分束的位置。重新设计探头几何结构可能会改善结果。神经EIT是用于评估神经内的神经束位置的准确工具。EIT和CF MEA的准确度与参考方法相似。我们给出了在神经中进行多电极记录的技术建议。
Fascicle localization power of EIT and MEA was evaluated against MicroCT reference scans. Tested MEAs based on silicon shanks and carbon fibers in rat sciatic nerves. Fast neural EIT and multi-electrode arrays can detect evoked activity within the nerve. EIT and carbon fiber MEA have better source localization power than silicon MEA. Technical recommendations for insertion of MEAs into the nerves are provided. The 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. We 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. Recorded 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). EIT 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. Nerve 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Eggers TE;Dweiri YM;McCallum GA;Durand DM
通讯作者：
Durand DM
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Chen, L.;Ilham, S. J.;Feng, B.
通讯作者：
Feng, B.
细胞外田地和电流的起源-EEG，ECOG，LFP和尖峰。
DOI：
10.1038/nrn3241
发表时间：
2012-05-18
期刊：
Nature reviews. Neuroscience
影响因子：
--
作者：
Buzsáki G;Anastassiou CA;Koch C
通讯作者：
Koch C
影响因子：
4
作者：
Davis, T. S.;Wark, H. A. C.;Greger, B.
通讯作者：
Greger, B.
DOI：
10.3390/s17020280
发表时间：
2017-01-31
期刊：
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Avery J;Dowrick T;Faulkner M;Goren N;Holder D
通讯作者：
Holder D