Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array.

Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
Journal of Neural Engineering (Impact Factor: 3.28). 03/2011; 8(2):025027. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The ongoing pilot clinical trial of the BrainGate neural interface system aims in part to assess the feasibility of using neural activity obtained from a small-scale, chronically implanted, intracortical microelectrode array to provide control signals for a neural prosthesis system. Critical questions include how long implanted microelectrodes will record useful neural signals, how reliably those signals can be acquired and decoded, and how effectively they can be used to control various assistive technologies such as computers and robotic assistive devices, or to enable functional electrical stimulation of paralyzed muscles. Here we examined these questions by assessing neural cursor control and BrainGate system characteristics on five consecutive days 1000 days after implant of a 4 × 4 mm array of 100 microelectrodes in the motor cortex of a human with longstanding tetraplegia subsequent to a brainstem stroke. On each of five prospectively-selected days we performed time-amplitude sorting of neuronal spiking activity, trained a population-based Kalman velocity decoding filter combined with a linear discriminant click state classifier, and then assessed closed-loop point-and-click cursor control. The participant performed both an eight-target center-out task and a random target Fitts metric task which was adapted from a human-computer interaction ISO standard used to quantify performance of computer input devices. The neural interface system was further characterized by daily measurement of electrode impedances, unit waveforms and local field potentials. Across the five days, spiking signals were obtained from 41 of 96 electrodes and were successfully decoded to provide neural cursor point-and-click control with a mean task performance of 91.3% ± 0.1% (mean ± s.d.) correct target acquisition. Results across five consecutive days demonstrate that a neural interface system based on an intracortical microelectrode array can provide repeatable, accurate point-and-click control of a computer interface to an individual with tetraplegia 1000 days after implantation of this sensor.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resident microglia and blood-borne macrophages have both been implicated to play a dominant role in mediating the neuroinflammatory response affecting implanted intracortical microelectrodes. However, the distinction between each cell type has not been demonstrated due to a lack of discriminating cellular markers. Understanding the subtle differences of each cell population in mediating neuroinflammation can aid in determining the appropriate therapeutic approaches to improve microelectrode performance. Therefore, the goal of this study is to characterize the role of infiltrating blood-derived cells, specifically macrophages, in mediating neuroinflammation following intracortical microelectrode implantation. Interestingly, we found no correlation between microglia and neuron populations at the microelectrode-tissue interface. On the other hand, blood-borne macrophages consistently dominated the infiltrating cell population following microelectrode implantation. Most importantly, we found a correlation between increased populations of blood-derived cells (including the total macrophage population) and neuron loss at the microelectrode-tissue interface. Specifically, the total macrophage population was greatest at two and sixteen weeks post implantation, at the same time points when we observed the lowest densities of neuronal survival in closest proximity to the implant. Together, our results suggest a dominant role of infiltrating macrophages, and not resident microglia, in mediating neurodegeneration following microelectrode implantation.
    Biomaterials 09/2014; 35(28):8049–8064. · 8.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are devices that record from the nervous system, provide input directly to the nervous system, or do both. Sensory BCIs such as cochlear implants have already had notable clinical success and motor BCIs have shown great promise for helping patients with severe motor deficits. Clinical and engineering outcomes aside, BCIs can also be tremendously powerful tools for scientific inquiry into the workings of the nervous system. They allow researchers to inject and record information at various stages of the system, permitting investigation of the brain in vivo and facilitating the reverse engineering of brain function. Most notably, BCIs are emerging as a novel experimental tool for investigating the tremendous adaptive capacity of the nervous system.
    Current opinion in neurobiology 04/2014; 25C:70-75. · 7.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to be valuable clinical tools. However, the varied nature of BCIs, combined with the large number of laboratories participating in BCI research, makes uniform performance reporting difficult. To address this situation, we present a tutorial on performance measurement in BCI research. Approach. A workshop on this topic was held at the 2013 International BCI Meeting at Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, California. This paper contains the consensus opinion of the workshop members, refined through discussion in the following months and the input of authors who were unable to attend the workshop. Main results. Checklists for methods reporting were developed for both discrete and continuous BCIs. Relevant metrics are reviewed for different types of BCI research, with notes on their use to encourage uniform application between laboratories. Significance. Graduate students and other researchers new to BCI research may find this tutorial a helpful introduction to performance measurement in the field.
    Journal of Neural Engineering 05/2014; · 3.28 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014