↓ Skip to main content

A method for systematic electrochemical and electrophysiological evaluation of neural recording electrodes.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Visualized Experiments, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A method for systematic electrochemical and electrophysiological evaluation of neural recording electrodes.
Published in
Journal of Visualized Experiments, March 2014
DOI 10.3791/51084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander R Harris, Simeon J Morgan, Gordon G Wallace, Antonio G Paolini

Abstract

New materials and designs for neural implants are typically tested separately, with a demonstration of performance but without reference to other implant characteristics. This precludes a rational selection of a particular implant as optimal for a particular application and the development of new materials based on the most critical performance parameters. This article develops a protocol for in vitro and in vivo testing of neural recording electrodes. Recommended parameters for electrochemical and electrophysiological testing are documented with the key steps and potential issues discussed. This method eliminates or reduces the impact of many systematic errors present in simpler in vivo testing paradigms, especially variations in electrode/neuron distance and between animal models. The result is a strong correlation between the critical in vitro and in vivo responses, such as impedance and signal-to-noise ratio. This protocol can easily be adapted to test other electrode materials and designs. The in vitro techniques can be expanded to any other nondestructive method to determine further important performance indicators. The principles used for the surgical approach in the auditory pathway can also be modified to other neural regions or tissue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 26%
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Professor 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 26%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Chemistry 2 9%
Materials Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2014.
All research outputs
#17,715,061
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#5,558
of 10,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,155
of 221,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#127
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.