Spinal primitives and intra-spinal micro-stimulation (ISMS) based prostheses: a neurobiological perspective on the “known unknowns” in ISMS and future prospects
The current literature on Intra-Spinal Micro-Stimulation (ISMS) for motor prostheses is reviewed in light of neurobiological data on spinal organization, and a neurobiological perspective on output motor modularity, ISMS maps, stimulation combination effects, and stability. By comparing published data in these areas, the review identifies several gaps in current knowledge that are crucial to the development of effective intraspinal neuroprostheses. Gaps can be categorized into a lack of systematic and reproducible details of: (a) Topography and threshold for ISMS across the segmental motor system, the topography of autonomic recruitment by ISMS, and the coupling relations between these two types of outputs in practice. (b) Compositional rules for ISMS motor responses tested across the full range of the target spinal topographies. (c) Rules for ISMS effects' dependence on spinal cord state and neural dynamics during naturally elicited or ISMS triggered behaviors. (d) Plasticity of the compositional rules for ISMS motor responses, and understanding plasticity of ISMS topography in different spinal cord lesion states, disease states, and following rehabilitation. All these knowledge gaps to a greater or lesser extent require novel electrode technology in order to allow high density chronic recording and stimulation. The current lack of this technology may explain why these prominent gaps in the ISMS literature currently exist. It is also argued that given the "known unknowns" in the current ISMS literature, it may be prudent to adopt and develop control schemes that can manage the current results with simple superposition and winner-take-all interactions, but can also incorporate the possible plastic and stochastic dynamic interactions that may emerge in fuller analyses over longer terms, and which have already been noted in some simpler model systems.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,458,826
of 26,199,717 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,219
of 11,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,853
of 278,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#76
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,199,717 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 278,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
