Transient Neurovascular Interface for Minimally Invasive Neural Recording and Stimulation

Adv. Mater. Technol. 2022, 2, 2100176 DOI: 10.1002/admt.202100176 Figure 2i in the original manuscript contained an error in the right y-axis. The error was due to an incorrect conversion while calculating the charge injection capacity. The unit originally reported was mC cm−2 instead of µC cm−2. The findings and conclusions presented in the original article are not affected. An updated version of Figure 2 is given below. Accordingly, a correction was made in the text as follows: “The average (± s.d.) maximum injectable current (always limited by the Emc) was found to be 5.2 ± 4.8 mA (n = 15 electrodes from N = 4 devices) and the respective CIC was 263.6 ± 247.5 µC cm−2 (Figure 2i). Currents used in metallic stent-electrode arrays fall within the range sustainable by the polymeric electrode presented in this article.[6]” Also, the following sentences that were added to justify an unusual CIC higher than the CSC should be removed: “It must be noted though that the CSC is usually an overestimation of the charge transfer potential of the electrodes: in fact when stimulating in vivo, at high frequencies and short pulses, only the superficial layers of the bulk PEDOT:PSS film will be active.[8] Thus, the CIC is expected to be lower than the CSC (typically CIC is 5–20% of the CSC for metals and oxides).[29] In our measurements, PEDOT:PSS electrodes reported a CIC higher than the total CSC with high variability among electrodes. A similar trend has been reported already in literature for PEDOT-coated PtIr electrodes.[38] A factor contributing to the high CIC is the positive open circuit potential reached by the electrodes after a prolonged stimulation at low current pulses to reach stabilization at the electrode-electrolyte interface. This open circuit potential was positive for all electrodes (≈0.25 V for most electrodes with a few exceptions at 0.15 V), leading most electrodes to a positive Emc value for injected currents below 1500 µA.” The authors apologize for this mistake.