Towards precise synthetic neural codes: high-dimensional stimulation with flexible electrodes
Source abstract
Abstract
Neural representations arise from the spatiotemporally structured activity of neuron populations, inherently residing in high-dimensional spaces. Writing specific information into the central nervous system requires precisely manipulating neural states within this framework. However, current neuromodulation methods lack the precision to fully address this complexity, presenting a significant challenge for advancing effective bidirectional interfaces. In this perspective, we advocate for high-dimensional stimulation as a systematic approach capable of approximating the high dimensionality of natural neural code for brain-machine interface applications. We outline key technological requirements on resolution, coverage, and safety, review recent advances in critical application areas, and highlight the promise of flexible electrode technology in enabling a transformative leap towards precise synthetic neural codes.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Neuroscience and Neural Engineering · Advanced Memory and Neural Computing · Neural dynamics and brain function
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Azevedo, F. A. et al. Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain. J. Comp. Neurol. 513, 532–541 (2009).10.1002/cne.21974 ↗
2. Bahney, J. & von Bartheld, C. S. The cellular composition and glia–neuron ratio in the spinal cord of a human and a nonhuman primate: comparison with other species and brain regions. Anat. Rec. 301, 697–710 (2018).10.1002/ar.23728 ↗
3. Langdon, C., Genkin, M. & Engel, T. A. A unifying perspective on neural manifolds and circuits for cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 363–377 (2023).10.1038/s41583-023-00693-x ↗
4. Churchland, M. M. et al. Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature 487, 51–56 (2012).10.1038/nature11129 ↗
5. Cunningham, J. P. & Yu, B. M. Dimensionality reduction for large-scale neural recordings. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1500–1509 (2014).10.1038/nn.3776 ↗
6. Lieber, J. D. & Bensmaia, S. J. High-dimensional representation of texture in somatosensory cortex of primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 3268–3277 (2019).10.1073/pnas.1818501116 ↗
7. Long, K. H., Lieber, J. D. & Bensmaia, S. J. Texture is encoded in precise temporal spiking patterns in primate somatosensory cortex. Nat. Commun. 13, 1311 (2022).10.1038/s41467-022-28873-w ↗
8. Lehky, S. R., Kiani, R., Esteky, H. & Tanaka, K. Dimensionality of object representations in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Neural Comput. 26, 2135–2162 (2014).10.1162/NECO_a_00648 ↗
9. Kodama, A., Kimura, K. & Sakai, K. Dimensionality of the intermediate-level representation of shape and texture in monkey V4. Neural Netw. 153, 444–449 (2022).10.1016/j.neunet.2022.06.027 ↗
10. Niell, C. M. & Stryker, M. P. Modulation of visual responses by behavioral state in mouse visual cortex. Neuron 65, 472–479 (2010).10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.033 ↗
11. O’Shea, D. J. et al. Direct neural perturbations reveal a dynamical mechanism for robust computation. bioRxiv 2022–12 (2022).10.1101/2022.12.16.520768 ↗
12. Jun, J. J. et al. Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity. Nature 551, 232–236 (2017).10.1038/nature24636 ↗
13. Chung, J. E. et al. High-density, long-lasting, and multi-region electrophysiological recordings using polymer electrode arrays. Neuron 101, 21–31.e5 (2019).10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.002 ↗
14. Sahasrabuddhe, K. et al. The Argo: a high channel count recording system for neural recording in vivo. J. Neural Eng. 18, 015002 (2021).10.1088/1741-2552/abd0ce ↗
15. Zhao, Z. et al. Ultraflexible electrode arrays for months-long high-density electrophysiological mapping of thousands of neurons in rodents. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 7, 520–532 (2023).10.1038/s41551-022-00941-y ↗
16. Steinmetz, N. A. et al. Neuropixels 2.0: A miniaturized high-density probe for stable, long-term brain recordings. Science 372, eabf4588 (2021).10.1126/science.abf4588 ↗
17. Trautmann, E. M. et al. Large-scale high-density brain-wide neural recording in nonhuman primates. BioRxiv 2023–02 (2023).10.1101/2023.02.01.526664 ↗
18. Liu, Y. et al. A high-density 1,024-channel probe for brain-wide recordings in non-human primates. Nat. Neurosci. 27, 1620–1631 (2024).10.1038/s41593-024-01692-6 ↗
19. Flesher, S. N. et al. A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control. Science 372, 831–836 (2021).10.1126/science.abd0380 ↗
20. Simeral, J. D., Kim, S.-P., Black, M. J., Donoghue, J. P. & Hochberg, L. R. Neural control of cursor trajectory and click by a human with tetraplegia 1000 days after implant of an intracortical microelectrode array. J. Neural Eng. 8, 025027 (2011).10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025027 ↗
21. Card, N. S. et al. An accurate and rapidly calibrating speech neuroprosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 391, 609–618 (2024).10.1056/NEJMoa2314132 ↗
22. Flesher, S. N. et al. Intracortical microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 361ra141 (2016).10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8083 ↗
23. Hiremath, S. V. et al. Human perception of electrical stimulation on the surface of somatosensory cortex. PLOS ONE 12, e0176020 (2017).10.1371/journal.pone.0176020 ↗
24. Armenta Salas, M. et al. Proprioceptive and cutaneous sensations in humans elicited by intracortical microstimulation. eLife 7, e32904 (2018).10.7554/eLife.32904 ↗
25. Araki, T. et al. Flexible neural interfaces for brain implants—the pursuit of thinness and high density. Flex. Print. Electron. 5, 043002 (2020).10.1088/2058-8585/abc3ca ↗
26. Lycke, R. et al. Low-threshold, high-resolution, chronically stable intracortical microstimulation by ultraflexible electrodes. Cell Rep. 42, 112554 (2023).10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112554 ↗
27. Orlemann, C. et al. Flexible polymer electrodes for stable prosthetic visual perception in mice. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 13, 2304169 (2024).10.1002/adhm.202304169 ↗
28. Pancrazio, J. J. et al. Thinking small: progress on microscale neurostimulation technology. Neuromodulation Technol. Neural Interface 20, 745–752 (2017).
29. Li, G. et al. A bimodal closed-loop neuromodulation implant integrated with ultraflexible probes to treat epilepsy. Biosens. Bioelectron. 271, 117071 (2025).10.1016/j.bios.2024.117071 ↗
30. Ye, Y. et al. Flexible bi-directional brain computer interface for controlling turning behavior of mice. In 2023 IEEE 36th Int. Conf. Micro Electro Mech. Syst. MEMS, 33–36 (IEEE, 2023).10.1109/MEMS49605.2023.10052363 ↗
31. Uguz, I. & Shepard, K. L. Spatially controlled, bipolar, cortical stimulation with high-capacitance, mechanically flexible subdural surface microelectrode arrays. Sci. Adv. 8, eabq6354 (2022).10.1126/sciadv.abq6354 ↗
32. Hettick, M. et al. The Layer 7 Cortical Interface: a scalable and minimally invasive brain–computer interface platform. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.02.474656v2 (2024).
33. Lee, J. M. et al. The ultra-thin, minimally invasive surface electrode array neuroweb for probing neural activity. Nat. Commun. 14, 7088 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-42860-9 ↗
34. Viana, D. et al. Nanoporous graphene-based thin-film microelectrodes for in vivo high-resolution neural recording and stimulation. Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 514–523 (2024).10.1038/s41565-023-01570-5 ↗
35. Potjans, T. C. & Diesmann, M. The cell-type specific cortical microcircuit: relating structure and activity in a full-scale spiking network model. Cereb. Cortex 24, 785–806 (2014).10.1093/cercor/bhs358 ↗
36. Graber, S. et al. Nest 3.8 (2024).
37. Histed, M. H., Bonin, V. & Reid, R. C. Direct activation of sparse, distributed populations of cortical neurons by electrical microstimulation. Neuron 63, 508–522 (2009).10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.016 ↗
38. Aberra, A. S., Peterchev, A. V. & Grill, W. M. Biophysically realistic neuron models for simulation of cortical stimulation. J. Neural Eng. 15, 066023 (2018).10.1088/1741-2552/aadbb1 ↗
39. Hughes, C. L., Stieger, K. A., Chen, K., Vazquez, A. L. & Kozai, T. D. Spatiotemporal properties of cortical excitatory and inhibitory neuron activation by sustained and bursting electrical microstimulation. iScience 28, 112707 (2024).10.1016/j.isci.2025.112707 ↗
40. Dadarlat, M. C., Sun, Y. J. & Stryker, M. P. Activity-dependent recruitment of inhibition and excitation in the awake mammalian cortex during electrical stimulation. Neuron 112, 821-834.e4 (2023).10.1016/j.neuron.2023.11.022 ↗
41. Jazayeri, M. & Afraz, A. Navigating the neural space in search of the neural code. Neuron 93, 1003–1014 (2017).10.1016/j.neuron.2017.02.019 ↗
42. Fifer, M. S. et al. Intracortical somatosensory stimulation to elicit fingertip sensations in an individual with spinal cord injury. Neurology 98, e679–e687 (2021).
43. Greenspon, C. M. et al. Evoking stable and precise tactile sensations via multi-electrode intracortical microstimulation of the somatosensory cortex. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 9, 935–951 (2024).10.1038/s41551-024-01299-z ↗
44. Hobbs, T. G. et al. Biomimetic stimulation patterns drive natural artificial touch percepts using intracortical microstimulation in humans. medRxiv 2024–07 (2024).10.1101/2024.07.31.24311276 ↗
45. Valle, G. et al. Tactile edges and motion via patterned microstimulation of the human somatosensory cortex. Science 387, 315–322 (2025).10.1126/science.adq5978 ↗
46. Ho, C. L. A. et al. Orientation preference maps in microcebus murinus reveal size-invariant design principles in primate visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 31, 733–741.e7 (2021).10.1016/j.cub.2020.11.027 ↗
47. Salzman, C. D., Britten, K. H. & Newsome, W. T. Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgements of motion direction. Nature 346, 174–177 (1990).10.1038/346174a0 ↗
48. Shannon, R. A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 39, 424–426 (1992).10.1109/10.126616 ↗
49. McCreery, D., Agnew, W., Yuen, T. & Bullara, L. Charge density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 37, 996–1001 (1990).10.1109/10.102812 ↗
50. McCreery, D., Yuen, T., Agnew, W. & Bullara, L. Stimulus parameters affecting tissue injury during microstimulation in the cochlear nucleus of the cat. Hearing Res. 77, 105–115 (1994).10.1016/0378-5955(94)90258-5 ↗
51. Cain, D. P. Kindling in sensory systems: neocortex. Exp. Neurol. 76, 276–283 (1982).10.1016/0014-4886(82)90208-4 ↗
52. Beauchamp, M. S. et al. Dynamic stimulation of visual cortex produces form vision in sighted and blind humans. Cell 181, 774–783 (2020).10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.033 ↗
53. Beauchamp, M. S., Bosking, W. H., Oswalt, D. & Yoshor, D. Raising the stakes for cortical visual prostheses. J. Clin. Investig.131, e154983 (2021).10.1172/JCI154983 ↗
54. Roelfsema, P. R. Writing to the mind’s eye of the blind. Cell 181, 758–759 (2020).10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.014 ↗
55. Callier, T., Suresh, A. K. & Bensmaia, S. J. Neural coding of contact events in somatosensory cortex. Cereb. Cortex 29, 4613–4627 (2019).10.1093/cercor/bhy337 ↗
56. Kirin, S. C. et al. Somatosensation evoked by cortical surface stimulation of the human primary somatosensory cortex. Front. Neurosci. 13, 1019 (2019).10.3389/fnins.2019.01019 ↗
57. Schmidt, E. M. et al. Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the blind based on intracortical micro stimulation of the visual cortex. Brain 119, 507–522 (1996).10.1093/brain/119.2.507 ↗
58. Houweling, A. R. & Brecht, M. Behavioural report of single neuron stimulation in somatosensory cortex. Nature 451, 65–68 (2008).10.1038/nature06447 ↗
59. Fern´andez, E. et al. Visual percepts evoked with an intracortical 96-channel microelectrode array inserted in human occipital cortex. J. Clin. Investig. 131, e151331 (2021).10.1172/JCI151331 ↗
60. Hughes, C. L. et al. Neural stimulation and recording performance in human sensorimotor cortex over 1500 days. J. Neural Eng. 18, 045012 (2021).10.1088/1741-2552/ac18ad ↗
61. Schiavone, G. et al. Guidelines to study and develop soft electrode systems for neural stimulation. Neuron 108, 238–258 (2020).10.1016/j.neuron.2020.10.010 ↗
62. Kanno, A., Enatsu, R., Ookawa, S., Ochi, S. & Mikuni, N. Location and threshold of electrical cortical stimulation for functional brain mapping. World Neurosurg. 119, e125–e130 (2018).10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.059 ↗
63. Stoney, S. D. Jr, Thompson, W. D. & Asanuma, H. Excitation of pyramidal tract cells by intracortical microstimulation: effective extent of stimulating current. J. Neurophysiol. 31, 659–669 (1968).10.1152/jn.1968.31.5.659 ↗
64. Kumaravelu, K., Sombeck, J., Miller, L. E., Bensmaia, S. J. & Grill, W. M. Stoney vs. histed: Quantifying the spatial effects of intracortical microstimulation. Brain Stimul. 15, 141–151 (2022).10.1016/j.brs.2021.11.015 ↗
65. Murasugi, C., Salzman, C. & Newsome, W. Microstimulation in visual area MT: effects of varying pulse amplitude and frequency. J. Neurosci. 13, 1719–1729 (1993).10.1523/JNEUROSCI.13-04-01719.1993 ↗
66. Voigt, M. B., Hubka, P. & Kral, A. Intracortical microstimulation differentially activates cortical layers based on stimulation depth. Brain Stimul. 10, 684–694 (2017).10.1016/j.brs.2017.02.009 ↗
67. Tanaka, Y. et al. Focal activation of neuronal circuits induced by microstimulation in the visual cortex. J. Neural Eng. 16, 036007 (2019).10.1088/1741-2552/ab0b80 ↗
68. Charman, W. N. Visual standards for driving. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 5, 211–220 (1985).10.1111/j.1475-1313.1985.tb00658.x ↗
69. Mai, J. K. & Paxinos, G. The human nervous system (Academic Press, 2011).
70. Marshel, J. H. et al. Cortical layer–specific critical dynamics triggering perception. Science 365, eaaw5202 (2019).10.1126/science.aaw5202 ↗
71. Chen, X. et al. Chronic stability of a neuroprosthesis comprising multiple adjacent Utah arrays in monkeys. J. Neural Eng. 20, 036039 (2023).10.1088/1741-2552/ace07e ↗
72. Chung, J. E. et al. Chronic implantation of multiple flexible polymer electrode arrays. J. Vis. Exp. JoVE 10–3791 (2019).10.3791/59957-v ↗
73. Mercanzini, A. et al. Demonstration of cortical recording using novel flexible polymer neural probes. Sens. Actuators, A 143, 90–96 (2008).10.1016/j.sna.2007.07.027 ↗
74. Patel, P. R. et al. Insertion of linear 8.4 µm diameter 16 channel carbon fiber electrode arrays for single unit recordings. J. Neural Eng. 12, 046009 (2015).10.1088/1741-2560/12/4/046009 ↗
75. Takeuchi, S., Suzuki, T., Mabuchi, K. & Fujita, H. 3D flexible multichannel neural probe array. J. Micromech. Microeng. 14, 104 (2003).10.1088/0960-1317/14/1/014 ↗
76. Lo, M. -c. et al. Coating flexible probes with an ultra fast degrading polymer to aid in tissue insertion. Biomed. Microdevices 17, 1–11 (2015).10.1007/s10544-015-9927-z ↗
77. Zhao, Z. et al. Parallel, minimally-invasive implantation of ultra-flexible neural electrode arrays. J. Neural Eng. 16, 035001 (2019).10.1088/1741-2552/ab05b6 ↗
78. Musk, E. et al. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e16194 (2019).10.2196/16194 ↗
79. Urdaneta, M. E. et al. The long-term stability of intracortical microstimulation and the foreign body response are layer dependent. Front. Neurosci. 16, 908858 (2022).10.3389/fnins.2022.908858 ↗
80. Bradley, D. C. et al. Visuotopic mapping through a multichannel stimulating implant in primate v1. J. Neurophysiol. 93, 1659–1670 (2005).10.1152/jn.01213.2003 ↗
81. Rousche, P. & Normann, R. Chronic intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of cat sensory cortex using the utah intracortical electrode array. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 7, 56–68 (1999).10.1109/86.750552 ↗
82. Davis, T. S. et al. Spatial and temporal characteristics of V1 microstimulation during chronic implantation of a microelectrode array in a behaving macaque. J. Neural Eng. 9, 065003 (2012).10.1088/1741-2560/9/6/065003 ↗
83. Cone, J. J., Ni, A. M., Ghose, K. & Maunsell, J. H. R. Electrical microstimulation of visual cerebral cortex elevates psychophysical detection thresholds. eneuro 5, ENEURO.0311–18.2018 (2018).10.1523/ENEURO.0311-18.2018 ↗
84. Patel, P. R. et al. Utah array characterization and histological analysis of a multi-year implant in non-human primate motor and sensory cortices. J. Neural Eng. 20, 014001 (2023).10.1088/1741-2552/acab86 ↗
85. Prasad, A. et al. Abiotic-biotic characterization of Pt/Ir microelectrode arrays in chronic implants. Front. Neuroeng. 7, 2 (2014).10.3389/fneng.2014.00002 ↗
86. Salatino, J. W., Ludwig, K. A., Kozai, T. D. Y. & Purcell, E. K. Glial responses to implanted electrodes in the brain. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 862–877 (2017).10.1038/s41551-017-0154-1 ↗
87. Szymanski, L. J. et al. Neuropathological effects of chronically implanted, intracortical microelectrodes in a tetraplegic patient. J. Neural Eng. 18, 0460b9 (2021).10.1088/1741-2552/ac127e ↗
88. Woeppel, K. et al. Explant analysis of Utah electrode arrays implanted in human cortex for brain-computer-interfaces. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9, 759711 (2021).10.3389/fbioe.2021.759711 ↗
89. Bjånes, D. A. et al. Quantifying physical degradation alongside recording and stimulation performance of 980 intracortical microelectrodes chronically implanted in three humans for 956–2246 days. medRxiv (2024).10.1101/2024.09.09.24313281 ↗
90. Xie, C. et al. Three-dimensional macroporous nanoelectronic networks as minimally invasive brain probes. Nat. Mater. 14, 1286–1292 (2015).10.1038/nmat4427 ↗
91. Luan, L. et al. Ultraflexible nanoelectronic probes form reliable, glial scar–free neural integration. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601966 (2017).10.1126/sciadv.1601966 ↗
92. Potter, K. A., Buck, A. C., Self, W. K. & Capadona, J. R. Stab injury and device implantation within the brain results in inversely multiphasic neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative responses. J. Neural Eng. 9, 046020 (2012).10.1088/1741-2560/9/4/046020 ↗
93. Boehler, C., Carli, S., Fadiga, L., Stieglitz, T. & Asplund, M. Tutorial: guidelines for standardized performance tests for electrodes intended for neural interfaces and bioelectronics. Nat. Protoc. 15, 3557–3578 (2020).10.1038/s41596-020-0389-2 ↗
94. Boehler, C., Oberueber, F., Schlabach, S., Stieglitz, T. & Asplund, M. Long-term stable adhesion for conducting polymers in biomedical applications: IrOx and nanostructured platinum solve the chronic challenge. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 189–197 (2017).10.1021/acsami.6b13468 ↗
95. Sainburg, R. L., Poizner, H. & Ghez, C. Loss of proprioception produces deficits in interjoint coordination. J. Neurophysiol. 70, 2136–2147 (1993).10.1152/jn.1993.70.5.2136 ↗
96. Cascio, C. J. Somatosensory processing in neurodevelopmental disorders. J. Neurodev. Disord. 2, 62–69 (2010).10.1007/s11689-010-9046-3 ↗
97. Bensmaia, S. J., Tyler, D. J. & Micera, S. Restoration of sensory information via bionic hands. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 7, 443–455 (2020).10.1038/s41551-020-00630-8 ↗
98. Bensmaia, S. J. Biological and bionic hands: natural neural coding and artificial perception. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140209 (2015).10.1098/rstb.2014.0209 ↗
99. George, J. A. et al. Biomimetic sensory feedback through peripheral nerve stimulation improves dexterous use of a bionic hand. Sci. Robot. 4, eaax2352 (2019).10.1126/scirobotics.aax2352 ↗
100. Valle, G. et al. Biomimetic intraneural sensory feedback enhances sensation naturalness, tactile sensitivity, and manual dexterity in a bidirectional prosthesis. Neuron 100, 37–45.e7 (2018).10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.033 ↗