Skip to main content

Materials and Devices for Micro-invasive Neural Interfacing

MRS Advances volume 4, pages 2805–2816 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

There is widespread research and popular interest in developing micro-invasive neural interfacing modalities. An increasing variety of probes have been developed and reported in the literature. Newer, smaller probes show significant benefit over larger ones in reducing tissue damage and scarring. A different set of obstacles arise, however, as probes become smaller. These include reliable insertion and robustness. This review articulates the impact of various design parameters (material, geometry, size) on probe insertion mechanisms, chronic viability, and glial scarring. We highlight various emerging technologies utilizing novel form factors including micron-scale interfaces and bio-inspired designs for probe insertion and steering.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. P. J. Uhlhaas and W. Singer, “Neural synchrony in brain disorders: relevance for cognitive dysfunctions and pathophysiology,” Neuron, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 155–68, 2006.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. K. Asanuma et al., “Network modulation in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease,” Brain, vol. 129, no. Pt 10, pp. 2667–78, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. J. M. Smith, “EEG in the diagnosis, classification, and management of patients with epilepsy,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, vol. 76, no. suppl 2, pp. ii2–ii7, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Karakis, K. H. Chiappa, M. San Luciano, K. C. Sassower, J. W. Stakes, and A. J. Cole, “The utility of routine EEG in the diagnosis of sleep disordered breathing,” J Clin Neurophysiol, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 333–8, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  5. (2019, March 30). Brain Controlled Technology. Available: https://www.emotiv.com/brain-controlled-technology/

  6. F. Babiloni, F. Cincotti, F. Carducci, P. M. Rossini, and C. Babiloni, “Spatial enhancement of EEG data by surface Laplacian estimation: the use of magnetic resonance imaging-based head models,” Clin Neurophysiol, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 724–7, 2001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Yang, S. Hakimian, and T. H. Schwartz, “Intraoperative ElectroCorticoGraphy (ECog): indications, techniques, and utility in epilepsy surgery,” Epileptic Disord, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 271–9, 2014.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. D. Lee and A. K. Lee, “In Vivo Patch-Clamp Recording in Awake Head-Fixed Rodents,” Cold Spring Harbor Protocols, vol. 2017, no. 4, p. pdb.prot095802, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Dagdeviren et al., “Miniaturized neural system for chronic, local intracerebral drug delivery,” Sci Transl Med, vol. 10, no. 425, 2018.

  10. A. A. Sharp, A. M. Ortega, D. Restrepo, D. Curran-Everett, and K. Gall, “In vivo penetration mechanics and mechanical properties of mouse brain tissue at micrometer scales,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 45–53, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. L. Rennaker, S. Street, A. M. Ruyle, and A. M. Sloan, “A comparison of chronic multi-channel cortical implantation techniques: manual versus mechanical insertion,” J Neurosci Methods, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 169–76, 2005.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. J. T. Maikos, R. A. Elias, and D. I. Shreiber, “Mechanical properties of dura mater from the rat brain and spinal cord,” J Neurotrauma, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 38–51, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. M. Okamura, C. Simone, and M. D. O’Leary, “Force modeling for needle insertion into soft tissue,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 1707–16, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Casanova, P. R. Carney, and M. Sarntinoranont, “In vivo evaluation of needle force and friction stress during insertion at varying insertion speed into the brain,” J Neurosci Methods, vol. 237, pp. 79–89, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. I. Khalaji, M. Hadavand, A. Asadian, R. V. Patel, and M. D. Naish, “Analysis of needle-tissue friction during vibration-assisted needle insertion,” in 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2013, pp. 4099–4104.

  16. C. L. Johnson et al., “Local mechanical properties of white matter structures in the human brain,” NeuroImage, vol. 79, pp. 145–152, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Xiaochun, M. Sadiq, G. Corner, S. Cochran, and H. Zhihong, “Reduced penetration force through ultrasound activation of a standard needle: An experimental and computational study,” in 2013 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 2013, pp. 1436–1439.

  18. A. Lecomte, E. Descamps, and C. Bergaud, “A review on mechanical considerations for chronically-implanted neural probes,” J Neural Eng, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 031001, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  19. K. A. Potter, A. C. Buck, W. K. Self, and J. R. Capadona, “Stab injury and device implantation within the brain results in inversely multiphasic neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative responses,” J Neural Eng, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 046020, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. J. Cotler et al., “Steerable Microinvasive Probes for Localized Drug Delivery to Deep Tissue,” Small, p. e1901459, 2019.

  21. K. B. Ramadi et al., “Focal, remote-controlled, chronic chemical modulation of brain microstructures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018.

  22. S. H. Fung, D. Burstein, and R. T. Born, “In vivo microelectrode track reconstruction using magnetic resonance imaging,” J Neurosci Methods, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 215–24, 1998.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. K. A. Streeter et al., “Coupling multielectrode array recordings with silver labeling of recording sites to study cervical spinal network connectivity,” J Neurophysiol, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 1014–1029, 2017.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. J. N. Turner et al., “Cerebral astrocyte response to micromachined silicon implants,” Exp Neurol, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 33–49, 1999.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. J. Subbaroyan, D. C. Martin, and D. R. Kipke, “A finite-element model of the mechanical effects of implantable microelectrodes in the cerebral cortex,” J Neural Eng, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 103–13, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. C. Spencer, J. C. Sy, R. Falcon-Banchs, and M. J. Cima, “A three dimensional in vitro glial scar model to investigate the local strain effects from micromotion around neural implants,” Lab Chip, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 795–804, 2017.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. S. R. Goldstein and M. Salcman, “Mechanical factors in the design of chronic recording intracortical microelectrodes,” IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 260–9, 1973.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. K. C. Spencer, J. C. Sy, K. B. Ramadi, A. M. Graybiel, R. Langer, and M. J. Cima, “Characterization of Mechanically Matched Hydrogel Coatings to Improve the Biocompatibility of Neural Implants,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, p. 1952, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  29. S. De Faveri et al., “Bio-inspired hybrid microelectrodes: a hybrid solution to improve long-term performance of chronic intracortical implants,” Front Neuroeng, vol. 7, p. 7, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  30. F. Ceyssens et al., “Extracellular matrix proteins as temporary coating for thin-film neural implants,” J Neural Eng, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 014001, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Z. Zhang, J. Nong, and Y. Zhong, “Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective layer-by-layer coatings for neural implants,” J Neural Eng, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 046015, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. K. Nguyen et al., “Influence of resveratrol release on the tissue response to mechanically adaptive cortical implants,” Acta Biomater, vol. 29, pp. 81–93, 2016.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. J. P. Seymour and D. R. Kipke, “Neural probe design for reduced tissue encapsulation in CNS,” Biomaterials, vol. 28, no. 25, pp. 3594–607, 2007.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. A. M. Stiller et al., “A Meta-Analysis of Intracortical Device Stiffness and Its Correlation with Histological Outcomes,” Micromachines, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 443, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  35. E. Y. Zhang, “Microinvasive probes for the longitudinal interrogation of neural dynamics,” S.M., Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018.

  36. A. Gilletti and J. Muthuswamy, “Brain micromotion around implants in the rodent somatosensory cortex,” J Neural Eng, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 189–95, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  37. L. Karumbaiah et al., “Relationship between intracortical electrode design and chronic recording function,” Biomaterials, vol. 34, no. 33, pp. 8061–74, 2013.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. H. S. Sohal et al., “The sinusoidal probe: a new approach to improve electrode longevity,” Front Neuroeng, vol. 7, p. 10, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. J. Jun et al., “Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity,” Nature, vol. 551, no. 7679, pp. 232–236, 2017.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. A. Canales et al. “Multifunctional fibers for simultaneous optical, electrical and chemical interrogation of neural circuits in vivo,” Nat Biotechnol, 2015.

  41. J. W. Jeong et al., “Wireless Optofluidic Systems for Programmable In Vivo Pharmacology and Optogenetics,” Cell, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 662–674, 2015.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. A. Obaid et al., “Massively Parallel Microwire Arrays Integrated with CMOS chips for Neural Recording,” bioRxiv, p. 573295, 2019.

  43. M. D. Ferro et al., “NeuroRoots, a bio-inspired, seamless Brain Machine Interface device for long-term recording,” bioRxiv, p. 460949, 2018.

  44. L. Luan et al., “Ultraflexible nanoelectronic probes form reliable, glial scar-free neural integration,” Sci Adv, vol. 3, no. 2, p. e1601966, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  45. F. Vitale, S. R. Summerson, B. Aazhang, C. Kemere, and M. Pasquali, “Neural stimulation and recording with bidirectional, soft carbon nanotube fiber microelectrodes,” ACS Nano, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4465–74, 2015.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. J. Liu et al., “Syringe-injectable electronics,” Nature Nanotechnology, Article vol. 10, p. 629, 2015.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. G. Hong, R. D. Viveros, T. J. Zwang, X. Yang, and C. M. Lieber, “Tissue-like Neural Probes for Understanding and Modulating the Brain,” Biochemistry, vol. 57, no. 27, pp. 3995–4004, 2018.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. C. L. Kolarcik et al., “Elastomeric and soft conducting microwires for implantable neural interfaces,” Soft Matter, vol. 11, no. 24, pp. 4847–61, 2015.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. H. C. Lee et al., “Histological evaluation of flexible neural implants; flexibility limit for reducing the tissue response?,” J Neural Eng, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 036026, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. Agorelius, F. Tsanakalis, A. Friberg, P. T. Thorbergsson, L. M. Pettersson, and J. Schouenborg, “An array of highly flexible electrodes with a tailored configuration locked by gelatin during implantation-initial evaluation in cortex cerebri of awake rats,” Front Neurosci, vol. 9, p. 331, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  51. J. H. Kim et al., “Flexible deep brain neural probe for localized stimulation and detection with met al guide,” Biosens Bioelectron, vol. 117, pp. 436–443, 2018.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. A. Lecomte et al., “Silk and PEG as means to stiffen a parylene probe for insertion in the brain: toward a double time-scale tool for local drug delivery,” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 25, no. 12, p. 125003, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  53. P. J. Rousche and R. A. Normann, “Chronic recording capability of the Utah Intracortical Electrode Array in cat sensory cortex,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 1998.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. M. C. Lo et al., “Coating flexible probes with an ultra fast degrading polymer to aid in tissue insertion,” Biomed Microdevices, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 34, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  55. U. Cerkvenik, B. van de Straat, S. W. S. Gussekloo, and J. L. van Leeuwen, “Mechanisms of ovipositor insertion and steering of a parasitic wasp,” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 114, no. 37, pp. E7822–E7831, 2017.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. C. Polidori, A. J. Garcia, and J. L. Nieves-Aldrey, “Breaking up the wall: metal-enrichment in Ovipositors, but not in mandibles, co-varies with substrate hardness in gall-wasps and their associates,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 7, p. e70529, 2013.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. T. Watts, R. Secoli, and F. R. y. Baena, “A Mechanics-Based Model for 3-D Steering of Programmable Bevel-Tip Needles,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 371–386, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  58. C. Pitcher and Y. Gao, “Analysis of drill head designs for dual-reciprocating drilling technique in planetary regoliths,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1765–1776, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  59. L. Frasson, S. Y. Ko, A. Turner, T. Parittotokkaporn, J. F. Vincent, and F. Rodriguez y Baena, “STING: a soft-tissue intervention and neurosurgical guide to access deep brain lesions through curved trajectories,” Proc Inst Mech Eng H, vol. 224, no. 6, pp. 775–88, 2010.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. N. J. van de Berg, D. J. van Gerwen, J. Dankelman, and J. J. van den Dobbelsteen, “Design Choices in Needle Steering—A Review,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2172–2183, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  61. A. J. Shoffstall et al., “A Mosquito Inspired Strategy to Implant Microprobes into the Brain,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 122, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  62. N. V. Datla et al., “A model to predict deflection of bevel-tipped active needle advancing in soft tissue,” Med Eng Phys, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 285–93, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Khalil B. Ramadi & Michael J. Cima

  2. Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Khalil B. Ramadi & Michael J. Cima

  3. Department of Materials Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Michael J. Cima

Authors
  1. Khalil B. Ramadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Cima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramadi, K.B., Cima, M.J. Materials and Devices for Micro-invasive Neural Interfacing. MRS Advances 4, 2805–2816 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2019.424

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2019.424