↓ Skip to main content

Update on Peripheral Nerve Electrodes for Closed-Loop Neuroprosthetics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
Update on Peripheral Nerve Electrodes for Closed-Loop Neuroprosthetics
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00350
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emil H. Rijnbeek, Nick Eleveld, Wouter Olthuis

Abstract

In this paper various types of electrodes for stimulation and recording activity of peripheral nerves for the control of neuroprosthetic limbs are reviewed. First, an overview of interface devices for (feedback-) controlled movement of a prosthetic device is given, after which the focus is on peripheral nervous system (PNS) electrodes. Important electrode properties, i.e., longevity and spatial resolution, are defined based upon the usability for neuroprostheses. The cuff electrode, longitudinal intrafascicular electrodes (LIFE), transverse intrafascicular multichannel electrode (TIME), Utah slanted electrode array (USEA), and the regenerative electrode are discussed and assessed on their longevity and spatial resolution. The cuff electrode seems to be a promising electrode for the control of neuroprostheses in the near future, because it shows the best longevity and good spatial resolution and it has been used on human subjects in multiple studies. The other electrodes may be promising in the future, but further research on their longevity and spatial resolution is needed. A more quantitatively uniform study protocol used for all electrodes would allow for a proper comparison of recording and stimulation performance. For example, the discussed electrodes could be compared in a large in vivo study, using one uniform comparison protocol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 22%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Student > Master 27 13%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 53 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 72 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 12%
Neuroscience 20 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Materials Science 6 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 60 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,921
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,376
of 344,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#109
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 344,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.