2016
DOI: 10.1109/jssc.2015.2506651
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Bidirectional Neural Interface Circuit With Active Stimulation Artifact Cancellation and Cross-Channel Common-Mode Noise Suppression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides that, template subtraction techniques suffer from varying artefact morphology stemming from undersampling the artefact shape and misalignment between stimulation and sample timing (Qian et al 2017, Zhou et al 2018. Similarly, adaptive filtering methods filter the stimulation pulse (Mendrela et al 2016) or the artefact recorded on a neighbouring channel (Basir-Kazeruni et al 2017) in order to estimate and subtract the artefact while filter coefficients are adapted. According to Zhou et al (2018), these subtraction methods can be implemented with low latency, but require artefact detection, template building and on-board memory for template storage.…”
Section: Methodological Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides that, template subtraction techniques suffer from varying artefact morphology stemming from undersampling the artefact shape and misalignment between stimulation and sample timing (Qian et al 2017, Zhou et al 2018. Similarly, adaptive filtering methods filter the stimulation pulse (Mendrela et al 2016) or the artefact recorded on a neighbouring channel (Basir-Kazeruni et al 2017) in order to estimate and subtract the artefact while filter coefficients are adapted. According to Zhou et al (2018), these subtraction methods can be implemented with low latency, but require artefact detection, template building and on-board memory for template storage.…”
Section: Methodological Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The artifact is frequently larger than the neural signal of interest and can confound the latter (Hottowy et al, 2012). Although solutions to artifact removal have been developed for protocols with periodic stimulation pulses (Stanslaski et al, 2012;Mendrela et al, 2016;Basir-Kazeruni et al, 2017;Culaclii et al, 2018;Zhou et al, 2019), removal of artifacts from continuous complex stimulation waveforms, such as DS, are yet to be demonstrated. Still, a system level approach in Culaclii et al (2018), which learns the initial artifact template and subsequently subtracts it from the recurring artifacts in the recordings, can be extended to accommodate the continuous artifacts from DS.…”
Section: Stimulation Artifacts In Neural Recordings During Continuous Biomimetic Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several approaches have been proposed to use the temporal properties of spikes and artifacts to perform spike sorting [6,8,17,38,58,67,68]. In template subtraction methods, the estimated artifacts are subtracted from the measurements to isolate neural activity [13,23,46,65] and identify spikes [40]. However, obtaining templates of the artifact in isolation is not always possible [51].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%