2019
DOI: 10.1109/jerm.2019.2895657
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fully-Passive Wireless Implant for Neuropotential Acquisition: An In Vivo Validation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
3
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When implantable neural sensors are placed under the skin, and interrogator is 2 mm away, the system loss is approximately 30 dB, deduced as the difference between the input neural power of -58 dBm and the received sideband power of -89 dBm, as illustrated in Fig. 6., which is similar to the values reported in [8].System Performance Analysis and Projection: The key performance metrics for a neural recording unit are a) low interrogating power, b) high backscattering power because of low conversion, propagation and other system losses and c) high sensitivity to weak (20 microvolts) neurosignals. These three aspects are examined in detail here with a simple diagram Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When implantable neural sensors are placed under the skin, and interrogator is 2 mm away, the system loss is approximately 30 dB, deduced as the difference between the input neural power of -58 dBm and the received sideband power of -89 dBm, as illustrated in Fig. 6., which is similar to the values reported in [8].System Performance Analysis and Projection: The key performance metrics for a neural recording unit are a) low interrogating power, b) high backscattering power because of low conversion, propagation and other system losses and c) high sensitivity to weak (20 microvolts) neurosignals. These three aspects are examined in detail here with a simple diagram Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…The whole wireless neurosensor is designed to a size of 15 mm ×16mm ×1.5 mm. With further advances in design, the device is miniaturized to 10 mm × 9 mm × 2.2mm [7], [8]. Existing neupotential sensors are based on rigid or flexible PCB substrates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…34,35 Given the small area of S1HL, it is difficult to perform simultaneous wired and wireless recordings of SSEPs, and for this reason, the recordings were performed sequentially. 32 Three different RF power levels of 11, 9, and 7 dBm were used. Each of these recordings, along with the wired recording, had duration of approximately 10 min and was digitized at a 2 kHz sampling rate.…”
Section: ■ Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We followed the previous method of SSEP signal processing. 32 The wired and wireless signals were first band-pass filtered from 4 to 80 Hz and then notch filtered between 35 and 45 Hz. The filtered signals were then segmented from −50 to 250 ms referenced to the onset of the recorded stimulation pulse.…”
Section: ■ Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation