Skip to main content

Immediate Cortical and Spinal C-Fos Immunoreactivity After ICMS of the Primary Somatosensory Cortex in Rats

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
XXVII Brazilian Congress on Biomedical Engineering (CBEB 2020)

Part of the book series: IFMBE Proceedings ((IFMBE,volume 83))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is an invasive stimulation technique through which it is possible to excitate and inhibit the activity of neurons from different cortical regions. The ICMS has been used in the context of neural prostheses targeting the restoration of neurological functions and as possible tactile feedback in brain-machine interfaces. Several protocols of microstimulation have been implemented to stimulate the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). The literature describes the direct effects of ICMS upon the activity of neurons in the stimulated area, though the distribution of the neuronal activity and the indirect effects of that stimulation, that is, those that occur far from the stimulated area, are still not fully described. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate effects of the ICMS on c-Fos cell immunoreactivity upon the stimulated area and the extent of this stimulation in S1, adjacent cortical areas, and also in the spinal cord of rats. It was observed that surrounding the microelectrode implant occurred a lower immunoreactivity extending to \(150{-}200\ \upmu \)m\(^{2}\), however, there was no statistical significance to right and left directions (X\(^{2}\)(4) = 5.00, p = 0.29; X\(^{2}\)(4) = 6.33, p = 0.18). It was followed by a higher number of c-Fos immunoreactive cells between \(250{-}1000\ \upmu \)m from the microelectrode track at the mediolateral directions, being statistically significant to \(500\ \upmu \)m at the rostroventral direction (F(2, 6) = 6.57, p = 0.031). Despite the qualitative differences in the number of immunoreactive cells, no statistically significant differences were observed to M1, S2, and spinal cord areas. This study corroborates with findings of previous research relative to the extent of neuronal activity and immunoreactivity after ICMS, adding that similar patterns of cortical immunoreactivity are seen in non-anesthetized stimulated animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 509.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Venkatraman S, Carmena J (2011) Active sensing of target location encoded by cortical microstimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 19:317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Voigt MB, Hubka P, Kral A (2017) Intracortical microstimulation differentially activates cortical layers based on stimulation depth. Brain Stimul 10:684–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dagnelie G (2008) Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 10:339–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fallon J, Irvine D, Shepherd R (2008) Cochlear implants and brain plasticity. Hearing Res 238:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Urdaneta M, Koivuniemi A, Otto K (2017) Central nervous system microstimulation: towards selective micro-neuromodulation. Curr Opini Biomed Eng 4:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Venkatraman S, Elkabany K, Long JD, Yao Y, Carmena JM (2008) A system for neural recording and closed-loop intracortical microstimulation in awake rodents. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Doherty J, Lebedev M, Hanson T, Fitzsimmons N, Nicolelis M (2009) A brain-machine interface instructed by direct intracortical microstimulation. Front Integr Neurosci 3:20

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bensmaia S (2015) Biological and bionic hands: natural neural coding and artificial perception. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 370:20140209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dadarlat M, O’doherty J, Sabes P (2015) A learning-based approach to artificial sensory feedback leads to optimal integration. Nat Neurosci 18:138

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tabot G, Dammann J, Berg J et al (2013) Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:18279–18284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berg J, Dammann J III, Tenore F et al (2013) Behavioral demonstration of a somatosensory neuroprosthesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21:500–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bensmaia S, Miller L (2014) Restoring sensorimotor function through intracortical interfaces: progress and looming challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci 15:313

    Google Scholar 

  13. Romo R, Hernandez A, Zainos A, Salinas E (1998) Somatosensory discrimination based on cortical microstimulation. Nature 392:387

    Google Scholar 

  14. Romo R, Hernandez A, Zainos A, Brody CD, Lemus L (2000) Sensing without touching: psychophysical performance based on cortical microstimulation. Neuron 26:273–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim S, Callier T, Tabot G, Gaunt R, Tenore F, Bensmaia S (2015) Behavioral assessment of sensitivity to intracortical microstimulation of primate somatosensory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:15202–15207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson L, Wander J, Sarma D, Su D, Fetz E, Ojemann J (2013) Direct electrical stimulation of the somatosensory cortex in humans using electrocorticography electrodes: a qualitative and quantitative report. J Neural Eng 10:036021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Flesher S, Collinger J, Foldes S, et al (2016) Intracortical microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex. Sci Transl Medic 8:361ra141–361ra141

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pais-Vieira M, Lebedev M, Kunicki C, Wang J, Nicolelis M (2013) A brain-to-brain interface for real-time sharing of sensorimotor information. Sci Rep 3:1319

    Google Scholar 

  19. Watson M, Dancause N, Sawan M (2015) Efficient microstimulation of the brain: a parametric approach. In: 2015 37th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, pp 2155–2158

    Google Scholar 

  20. Watson M, Dancause N, Sawan M (2016) Intracortical microstimulation parameters dictate the amplitude and latency of evoked responses. Brain Stimul 9:276–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fox K (2008) Barrel cortex, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Histed M, Ni A, Maunsell J (2013) Insights into cortical mechanisms of behavior from microstimulation experiments. Prog Neurobiol 103:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Butovas S, Schwarz C (2003) Spatiotemporal effects of microstimulation in rat neocortex: a parametric study using multielectrode recordings. J Neurophysiol 90:3024–3039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tehovnik E, Slocum W (2007) What delay fields tell us about striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 98:559–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Benali A, Weiler E, Benali Y, Dinse H, Eysel U (2008) Excitation and inhibition jointly regulate cortical reorganization in adult rats. J Neurosci 28:12284–12293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Diamond M, Von Heimendahl M, Knutsen P M, Kleinfeld D, Ahissar E. ‘Where’ and ‘what’ in the whisker sensorimotor system. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:601

    Google Scholar 

  27. Paxinos G, Watson C (2007) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates, 6th edn. Academic Press, Londres

    Google Scholar 

  28. Histed M, Bonin V, Reid C (2009) Direct activation of sparse, distributed populations of cortical neurons by electrical microstimulation. Neuron 63:508–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Santos Dumont Institute, Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. S. Costa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Costa, V.S., Suassuna, A.O.B., Galdino, L., Kunicki, A.C. (2022). Immediate Cortical and Spinal C-Fos Immunoreactivity After ICMS of the Primary Somatosensory Cortex in Rats. In: Bastos-Filho, T.F., de Oliveira Caldeira, E.M., Frizera-Neto, A. (eds) XXVII Brazilian Congress on Biomedical Engineering. CBEB 2020. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 83. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70601-2_330

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70601-2_330

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70600-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70601-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics