Independent positioning of microelectrodes for multisite recordings in vitro

Albus, K.; Sinske, Kurt; Heinemann, Uwe

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.09.001

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These approaches have included developing novel implant materials and insulation, implant shape and electrode tip shape (sharp versus blunt), implant size, implant rigidity (rigid versus flexible), implantation speed and the use of bioactive coatings on the microelectrodes intended to hinder the immune response [5,7,8,12,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. An emerging strategy to overcome recording failure in the microelectrodes is to reposition the microelectrodes postimplantation [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] in the event of a failure. However, it is unknown how the resulting glial scar, caused by repositioning, will impact the overall chronic glial scar along the length of the electrode as well as at the tip of the electrode, which has been repositioned away from the initial glial encapsulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of gliosis around moveable implants in the brain

Stice¹,

Muthuswamy²

2009

J. Neural Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repositioning microelectrodes post-implantation is emerging as a promising approach to achieve long-term reliability in single neuronal recordings. The main goal of this study was to (a) assess glial reaction in response to movement of microelectrodes in the brain post-implantation and (b) determine an optimal window of time post-implantation when movement of microelectrodes within the brain would result in minimal glial reaction. Eleven Sprague-Dawley rats were implanted with two microelectrodes each that could be moved in vivo post-implantation. Three cohorts were investigated: (1) microelectrode moved at day 2 (n = 4 animals), (2) microelectrode moved at day 14 (n = 5 animals) and (3) microelectrode moved at day 28 (n = 2 animals). Histological evaluation was performed in cohorts 1-3 at four-week post-movement (30 days, 42 days and 56 days post-implantation, respectively). In addition, five control animals were implanted with microelectrodes that were not moved. Control animals were implanted for (1) 30 days (n = 1), (2) 42 days (n = 2) and (3) 56 days (n = 2) prior to histological evaluation. Quantitative assessment of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) around the tip of the microelectrodes demonstrated that GFAP levels were similar around microelectrodes moved at day 2 when compared to the 30-day controls. However, GFAP expression levels around microelectrode tips that moved at day 14 and day 28 were significantly less than those around control microelectrodes implanted for 42 and 56 days, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that moving microelectrodes after implantation is a viable strategy that does not result in any additional damage to brain tissue. Further, moving the microelectrode downwards after 14 days of implantation may actually reduce the levels of GFAP expression around the tips of the microelectrodes in the long term.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of gliosis around moveable implants in the brain

Stice¹,

Muthuswamy²

2009

J. Neural Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was also described a possibility to position and insert independently several microelectrodes to investigate different areas of the brain (Fig. 2 ) [33]. The magnitude of the insertion speed used by different research teams decreases from fast movement of 1-8 m/s [34] to moderate speed ~2 mm/s [35] and to slow motion 5 µm/s [36].…”

Section: Microelectrode Insertion and Positioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological Barriers in the Use of Electrochemical Microsensors and Microbiosensors for in vivo Analysis of Neurological Relevant Substances

Bucur

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper is presented an overview of the technological barriers faced by the in vivo brain analysis with microelectrodes. Numerous microsensors and enzymatic microbiosensors have been developed for the real time monitoring of neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, drugs and diverse other biological relevant substances. A clear understanding of the working principle, advantages and limitations is essential for the acquisition of valid data in neurological investigations. Some of the aspects presented here refer to: microelectrode insertion and positioning related to possibilities to minimize tissue damage, spatial and temporal resolution of the measurements, actual controversies in data interpretation and sensor calibration, simultaneous detection of multiple analytes, interferences and state of the art in the development of wireless devices.

show abstract

Independent positioning of microelectrodes for multisite recordings in vitro

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Assessment of gliosis around moveable implants in the brain

Assessment of gliosis around moveable implants in the brain

Technological Barriers in the Use of Electrochemical Microsensors and Microbiosensors for in vivo Analysis of Neurological Relevant Substances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About