The Enhancement of a Chronically Implanted Microwire Electrode Performance

Article Preview

Abstract:

Electrodes are expensive consumables of electrophysiological experiments. Cheap and homemade microwire electrodes have been widely applied, but their implantation performance is not good. To fabricate low cost and acceptable performance of microwire electrode, first, we analyzed the key factors affecting the long-term recording performance and determined the direction of the enhancement of electrode. We improved the existing fabrication process through electrode fabrication and the electrode tip surface modification, and systematically evaluated its properties, signal acquisition ability and biocompatibility. The result shows that the improved electrode tip surface is smooth and tidy, and its impedance decreased by 56.1% on average; record signal-to-noise ratio is higher; recording longevity reached 45 days; biocompatibility is better. It can meet the use of the general electrophysiological experimental, and electrode fabrication cost is less than 58 yuan.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 960-961)

Pages:

689-694

Citation:

Online since:

June 2014

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2014 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Pei ji Liang, Ai hua Chen: Multi-electrode Recording and Neural Information Processing Activity of Neurons (Beijing University of Technology press, China 2003). (In Chinese).

Google Scholar

[2] Zhou yan Feng, Jing Wang: Chinese Journal of Electronics. 1, 153-154. (2009) (In Chinese).

Google Scholar

[3] Brent D. Winslow, Patrick A. Tresco: Biomaterials. 31, 1558-1567. (2010).

Google Scholar

[4] Kozai, T. D., Kipke, D. R: Neurosci. Methods. 184, 199-205. (2009).

Google Scholar

[5] Lee, H., Bellamkonda, R. V., Sun, W., Levenston, M. E: Neural Eng. 2, 81-89. (2005).

Google Scholar

[6] Polikov, V. S., Tresco, P. A., and Reichert, W. M: Neurosci. Methods. 148, 1-18. (2005).

Google Scholar

[7] Grill, W. M., Norman, S. E., Bellamkonda, R. V: Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 11, 1-24. (2009).

Google Scholar

[8] Biran, R., Martin, D. C., Tresco, P. A: Exp. Neurol. 195, 115-126. (2005).

Google Scholar

[9] David,A. Robinson: Proceedings of The IEEE. 56, 1065-1067. (1968).

Google Scholar

[10] L. A. GEDDES: Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 31, 879-890. (2003).

Google Scholar

[11] Rousche PJ, Pellinen DS, Pivin DP: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 48, 361-371. (2001).

Google Scholar

[12] Szarowski DH, Andersen MD: Brain Res. 983, 23-35. (2003).

Google Scholar

[13] Thelin J, Jo¨ rntell H, Psouni E, et al: PLoS ONE. 6, 1~9. (2011).

Google Scholar

[14] Sanchez J C, Alba N, Nishida T, et al: Neural Sys. Rehabil. Eng. 14, 217-221 (2006).

Google Scholar

[15] Erin Patrick, Mark E. Orazem, Justin C. Sanchez, et al: Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 198, 158-171. (2011).

Google Scholar

[16] E. Huigen, A. Peper C.A. Grimbergen: Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 40, 332-338. (2002).

Google Scholar

[17] Xindong Liu, Douglas B. McCreery, et al: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON REHABILITATION ENGINEERING. 7, 315-325. (1999).

Google Scholar