Nanoporous graphene-based thin-film microelectrodes for in vivo high-resolution neural recording and stimulation
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract One of the critical factors determining the performance of neural interfaces is the electrode material used to establish electrical communication with the neural tissue, which needs to meet strict electrical, electrochemical, mechanical, biological and microfabrication compatibility requirements. This work presents a nanoporous graphene-based thin-film technology and its engineering to form flexible neural interfaces. The developed technology allows the fabrication of small microelectrodes (25 µm diameter) while achieving low impedance (∼25 kΩ) and high charge injection (3–5 mC cm−2). In vivo brain recording performance assessed in rodents reveals high-fidelity recordings (signal-to-noise ratio >10 dB for local field potentials), while stimulation performance assessed with an intrafascicular implant demonstrates low current thresholds (<100 µA) and high selectivity (>0.8) for activating subsets of axons within the rat sciatic nerve innervating tibialis anterior and plantar interosseous muscles. Furthermore, the tissue biocompatibility of the devices was validated by chronic epicortical (12 week) and intraneural (8 week) implantation. This work describes a graphene-based thin-film microelectrode technology and demonstrates its potential for high-precision and high-resolution neural interfacing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Neuroscience and Neural Engineering · Conducting polymers and applications · EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. Hariz, M. Twenty-five years of deep brain stimulation: celebrations and apprehensions. Mov. Disord. 27, 930–933 (2012).10.1002/mds.25007 ↗
2. Macherey, O. & Carlyon, R. P. Cochlear implants. Curr. Biol. 24, R878–R884 (2014).10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.053 ↗
3. Raspopovic, S. et al. Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 222ra19–222ra19 (2014).10.1126/scitranslmed.3006820 ↗
4. Dhillon, G. S. & Horch, K. W. Neuroprosthetics: Theory And Practice (World Scientific, 2004).
5. Chae, M. S., Yang, Z. & Liu, W. Microelectronics of recording, stimulation, and wireless telemetry for neuroprosthetics: design and optimization. in Implantable Neural Prostheses 2: Techniques and Engineering Approaches (eds Zhou, D. & Greenbaum, E.) 253–330 (Springer, 2010).10.1007/978-0-387-98120-8_9 ↗
6. Yang, X. et al. Bioinspired neuron-like electronics. Nat. Mater. 18, 510–517 (2019).10.1038/s41563-019-0292-9 ↗
7. Anumanchipalli, G. K., Chartier, J. & Chang, E. F. Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 568, 493–498 (2019).10.1038/s41586-019-1119-1 ↗
8. Khodagholy, D. et al. NeuroGrid: recording action potentials from the surface of the brain. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 310–315 (2015).10.1038/nn.3905 ↗
9. Navarro, X. et al. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J. Peripheral Nerv. Syst. 10, 229–258 (2005).10.1111/j.1085-9489.2005.10303.x ↗
10. Kostarelos, K., Vincent, M., Hebert, C. & Garrido, J. A. Graphene in the design and engineering of next-generation neural interfaces. Adv. Mater. 29, 1700909 (2017).10.1002/adma.201700909 ↗
11. Viswam, V., Obien, M. E. J., Franke, F., Frey, U. & Hierlemann, A. Optimal electrode size for multi-scale extracellular-potential recording from neuronal assemblies. Front. Neurosci. 13, 385 (2019).10.3389/fnins.2019.00385 ↗
12. Bouthour, W. et al. Biomarkers for closed-loop deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease and beyond. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 15, 343–352 (2019).10.1038/s41582-019-0166-4 ↗
13. Kohler, F. et al. Closed-loop interaction with the cerebral cortex: a review of wireless implant technology. Brain Comput. Interfaces 4, 146–154 (2017).10.1080/2326263X.2017.1338011 ↗
14. Butson, C. R. & McIntyre, C. C. Current steering to control the volume of tissue activated during deep brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 1, 7–15 (2008).10.1016/j.brs.2007.08.004 ↗
15. Benabid, A. L., Chabardes, S., Mitrofanis, J. & Pollak, P. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 8, 67–81 (2009).10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70291-6 ↗
16. Zheng, X. S., Tan, C., Castagnola, E. & Cui, X. T. Electrode materials for chronic electrical microstimulation. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 10, 2100119 (2021).10.1002/adhm.202100119 ↗
17. Cogan, S. F. Neural stimulation and recording electrodes. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 10, 275–309 (2008).10.1146/annurev.bioeng.10.061807.160518 ↗
18. Caldwell, D. J., Ojemann, J. G. & Rao, R. P. N. Direct electrical stimulation in electrocorticographic brain–computer interfaces: enabling technologies for input to cortex. Front. Neurosci. 13, 804 (2019).10.3389/fnins.2019.00804 ↗
19. Weltin, A. & Kieninger, J. Electrochemical methods for neural interface electrodes. J. Neural Eng. 18, 052001 (2021).10.1088/1741-2552/ac28d5 ↗
20. Ganji, M. et al. Selective formation of porous Pt nanorods for highly electrochemically efficient neural electrode interfaces. Nano Lett. 19, 6244–6254 (2019).10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02296 ↗
21. Gerwig, R. et al. PEDOT–CNT composite microelectrodes for recording and electrostimulation applications: fabrication, morphology, and electrical properties. Front. Neuroeng. 5, 8 (2012).10.3389/fneng.2012.00008 ↗
22. Luo, X., Weaver, C. L., Zhou, D. D., Greenberg, R. & Cui, X. T. Highly stable carbon nanotube doped poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) for chronic neural stimulation. Biomaterials 32, 5551–5557 (2011).10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.04.051 ↗
23. Devi, M. et al. Carbon-based neural electrodes: promises and challenges. J. Neural Eng. 18, 041007 (2021).10.1088/1741-2552/ac1e45 ↗
24. Vomero, M. et al. Glassy carbon electrocorticography electrodes on ultra-thin and finger-like polyimide substrate: performance evaluation based on different electrode diameters. Materials 11, 2486 (2018).10.3390/ma11122486 ↗
25. Oldroyd, P. & Malliaras, G. G. Achieving long-term stability of thin-film electrodes for neurostimulation. Acta Biomater. 139, 65–81 (2022).10.1016/j.actbio.2021.05.004 ↗
26. Liang, C. et al. Strategies for interface issues and challenges of neural electrodes. Nanoscale 14, 3346–3366 (2022).10.1039/D1NR07226A ↗
27. Koerbitzer, B. et al. Graphene electrodes for stimulation of neuronal cells. 2D Mater. 3, 024004 (2016).10.1088/2053-1583/3/2/024004 ↗
28. Lu, Y., Liu, X. & Kuzum, D. Graphene-based neurotechnologies for advanced neural interfaces. Curr. Opin. Biomed. Eng. 6, 138–147 (2018).10.1016/j.cobme.2018.06.001 ↗
29. Masvidal-Codina, E. et al. High-resolution mapping of infraslow cortical brain activity enabled by graphene microtransistors. Nat. Mater. 18, 280 (2019).10.1038/s41563-018-0249-4 ↗
30. Wang, K. et al. High-performance graphene-fiber-based neural recording microelectrodes. Adv. Mater. 31, 1805867 (2019).10.1002/adma.201805867 ↗
31. Lu, Y., Lyu, H., Richardson, A. G., Lucas, T. H. & Kuzum, D. Flexible neural electrode array based-on porous graphene for cortical microstimulation and sensing. Sci. Rep. 6, 33526 (2016).
32. Abraham, J. et al. Tunable sieving of ions using graphene oxide membranes. Nat. Nanotech 12, 546–550 (2017).10.1038/nnano.2017.21 ↗
33. Liu, D., Li, Q. & Zhao, H. Electrolyte-assisted hydrothermal synthesis of holey graphene films for all-solid-state supercapacitors. J. Mater. Chem. A 6, 11471–11478 (2018).10.1039/C8TA02580K ↗
34. Hu, K., Xie, X., Szkopek, T. & Cerruti, M. Understanding hydrothermally reduced graphene oxide hydrogels: from reaction products to hydrogel properties. Chem. Mater. 28, 1756–1768 (2016).10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b04713 ↗
35. Chen, H., Song, Z., Zhao, X., Li, X. & Lin, H. Reduction of free-standing graphene oxide papers by a hydrothermal process at the solid/gas interface. RSC Adv. 3, 2971–2978 (2013).10.1039/c2ra21576d ↗
36. Constantin, C. P., Aflori, M., Damian, R. F. & Rusu, R. D. Biocompatibility of polyimides: a mini-review. Materials 12, 3166 (2019).10.3390/ma12193166 ↗
37. Vomero, M. et al. Conformable polyimide-based μECoGs: bringing the electrodes closer to the signal source. Biomaterials 255, 120178 (2020).10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120178 ↗
38. Hess, L. H., Seifert, M. & Garrido, J. A. Graphene transistors for bioelectronics. Proc. IEEE 101, 1780–1792 (2013).10.1109/JPROC.2013.2261031 ↗
39. Hsu, C. H. & Mansfeld, F. Technical note: concerning the conversion of the constant phase element parameter Y0 into a capacitance. Corrosion 57, 747–748 (2001).10.5006/1.3280607 ↗
40. Nieto-Diego, J. & Malmierca, M. S. Topographic distribution of stimulus-specific adaptation across auditory cortical fields in the anesthetized rat. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002397 (2016).10.1371/journal.pbio.1002397 ↗
41. Heffner, H. E. & Heffner, R. S. Hearing ranges of laboratory animals. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 46, 20–22 (2007).
42. Huang, B. et al. Latency of auditory evoked potential monitoring the effects of general anesthetics on nerve fibers and synapses. Sci. Rep. 5, 12730 (2015).
43. Tringides, C. M. et al. Viscoelastic surface electrode arrays to interface with viscoelastic tissues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 1019–1029 (2021).10.1038/s41565-021-00926-z ↗
44. Ha, S., Kim, C., Mercier, P. P. & Cauwenberghs, G. High-Density Integrated Electrocortical Neural Interfaces: Low-Noise Low-Power System-on-Chip Design Methodology (Elsevier, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01956-010.1016/C2017-0-01956-0 ↗
45. Suarez-Perez, A. et al. Quantification of signal-to-noise ratio in cerebral cortex recordings using flexible MEAs with co-localized platinum black, carbon nanotubes, and gold electrodes. Front. Neurosci. 12, 862 (2018).10.3389/fnins.2018.00862 ↗
46. Boretius, T. et al. A transverse intrafascicular multichannel electrode (TIME) to interface with the peripheral nerve. Biosens. Bioelectron. 26, 62–69 (2010).10.1016/j.bios.2010.05.010 ↗
47. Guiho, T. et al. New stimulation device to drive multiple transverse intrafascicular electrodes and achieve highly selective and rich neural responses. Sensors 21, 7219 (2021).10.3390/s21217219 ↗
48. de la Oliva, N. et al. Long-term functionality of transversal intraneural electrodes is improved by dexamethasone treatment. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 457–464 (2019).10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2897256 ↗
49. Badia, J. et al. Comparative analysis of transverse intrafascicular multichannel, longitudinal intrafascicular and multipolar cuff electrodes for the selective stimulation of nerve fascicles. J. Neural Eng. 8, 036023 (2011).10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036023 ↗
50. de la Oliva, N., Navarro, X. & del Valle, J. Time course study of long-term biocompatibility and foreign body reaction to intraneural polyimide-based implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 106, 746–757 (2018).10.1002/jbm.a.36274 ↗
51. Lotti, F., Ranieri, F., Vadalà, G., Zollo, L. & Di Pino, G. Invasive intraneural interfaces: foreign body reaction issues. Front. Neurosci. 11, 497 (2017).10.3389/fnins.2017.00497 ↗
52. Oldroyd, P., Gurke, J. & Malliaras, G. G. Stability of thin film neuromodulation electrodes under accelerated aging conditions. Adv. Funct. Mater. 33, 2208881 (2023).10.1002/adfm.202208881 ↗
53. Duraivel, S. et al. High-resolution neural recordings improve the accuracy of speech decoding. Nat. Commun. 14, 6938 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-42555-1 ↗
54. Barth, K. J. et al. Flexible, high-resolution cortical arrays with large coverage capture microscale high-frequency oscillations in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia 64, 1910–1924 (2023).10.1111/epi.17642 ↗
55. Krack, P., Fraix, V., Mendes, A., Benabid, A.-L. & Pollak, P. Postoperative management of subthalamic nucleus stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 17, S188–S197 (2002).10.1002/mds.10163 ↗
56. Sekirnjak, C. et al. Electrical stimulation of mammalian retinal ganglion cells with multielectrode arrays. J. Neurophysiol. 95, 3311–3327 (2006).10.1152/jn.01168.2005 ↗
57. Han, T. H., Huang, Y.-K., Tan, A. T. L., Dravid, V. P. & Huang, J. Steam etched porous graphene oxide network for chemical sensing. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 15264–15267 (2011).10.1021/ja205693t ↗
58. Lipus, J. & Krukiewicz, K. Challenges and limitations of using charge storage capacity to assess capacitance of biomedical electrodes. Measurement 191, 110822 (2022).10.1016/j.measurement.2022.110822 ↗
59. Ehlich, J. et al. Direct measurement of oxygen reduction reactions at neurostimulation electrodes. J. Neural Eng. 19, 036045 (2022).10.1088/1741-2552/ac77c0 ↗
60. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0389-2 (2020).10.1038/s41596-020-0389-2 ↗
61. Nakao, K. & Nakazawa, K. Brain state-dependent abnormal LFP activity in the auditory cortex of a schizophrenia mouse model. Front. Neurosci. 8, 168 (2014).10.3389/fnins.2014.00168 ↗
62. Navarro, X. Functional evaluation of peripheral nerve regeneration and target reinnervation in animal models: a critical overview. Eur. J. Neurosci. 43, 271–286 (2016).10.1111/ejn.13033 ↗
63. Lago, N., Yoshida, K., Koch, K. P. & Navarro, X. Assessment of biocompatibility of chronically implanted polyimide and platinum intrafascicular electrodes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 54, 281–290 (2007).10.1109/TBME.2006.886617 ↗