↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
A comparison of microelectrodes for a visual cortical prosthesis using finite element analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fneng.2012.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Brunton, Arthur J. Lowery, Ramesh Rajan

Abstract

Altering the geometry of microelectrodes for use in a cortical neural prosthesis modifies the electric field generated in tissue, thereby affecting electrode efficacy and tissue damage. Commonly, electrodes with an active region located at the tip ("conical" electrodes) are used for stimulation of cortex but there is argument to believe this geometry may not be the best. Here we use finite element analysis to compare the electric fields generated by three types of electrodes, a conical electrode with exposed active tip, an annular electrode with active area located up away from the tip, and a striped annular electrode where the active annular region has bands of insulation interrupting the full active region. The results indicate that the current density on the surface of the conical electrodes can be up to 10 times greater than the current density on the annular electrodes of the same height, which may increase the propensity for tissue damage. However choosing the most efficient electrode geometry in order to reduce power consumption is dependent on the distance of the electrode to the target neurons. If neurons are located within 10 μm of the electrode, then a small conical electrode would be more power efficient. On the other hand if the target neuron is greater than 500 μm away-as happens normally when insertion of an array of electrodes into cortex results in a "kill zone" around each electrode due to insertion damage and inflammatory responses-then a large annular electrode would be more efficient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Russia 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Researcher 9 17%
Other 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 September 2012.
All research outputs
#15,251,976
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#49
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,185
of 244,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroengineering
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.