Intracortical Microstimulation as a Feedback Source for Brain-Computer Interface Users

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering book series (BRIEFSELECTRIC)


Dexterous object manipulation requires cutaneous sensory feedback, and in its absence, even simple grasping tasks appear clumsy and slow. In prosthetic limbs controlled through intracortical brain-computer interfaces (iBCIs), restoring this somatosensory feedback could be an important step to improving function as vision provides only impoverished cues during object interactions. Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of primary somatosensory cortex (S1) is a potential method to restore this sensory feedback, particularly in people who cannot benefit from stimulation of the peripheral nervous system. Here, we demonstrate the ability of ICMS delivered to S1 to produce somatotopically relevant, cutaneous percepts on individual fingers with graded intensity. This demonstrates the capabilities of ICMS for providing cutaneous feedback to iBCI users.



This study was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Arlington, VA, USA) Revolutionizing Prosthetics program (contract number N66001-10-C-4056) and Office of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs (Washington DC, USA, grant numbers B6789C, B7143R, and RX720). S.N.F. was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No DGE-1247842.


  1. 1.
    Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Wang W, Tyler-Kabara EC, Weber DJ, McMorland AJ, Velliste M, Boninger ML, Schwartz AB (2012) High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wodlinger B, Downey JE, Tyler-Kabara EC, Schwartz AB, Boninger ML, Collinger JL (2015) Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain-machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J Neural Eng 12:016011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, Branner A, Chen D, Penn RD, Donoghue JP (2006) Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442(7099):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collinger JL, Boninger ML, Bruns TM, Curley K, Wang W, Weber DJ (2013) Functional priorities, assistive technology, and brain-computer interfaces after spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 50(2):145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rothwell JC, Traub MM, Day BL, Obeso JA, Thomas PK, Marsden CD (1982) Manual motor performance in a deafferented man. Brain 105(Pt 3):515–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF (1995) Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. II. Effects of visual information on accuracy. J Neurophysiol 73:361–372Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sainburg RL, Poizner H, Ghez C (1993) Loss of proprioception produces deficits in interjoint coordination. J Neurophysiol 70:2136–2147Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson RS, Hger C, Bäckström L (1992) Somatosensory control of precision grip during unpredictable pulling loads. III. Impairments during digital anesthesia. Exp Brain Res 89:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenmalm P, Johansson RS (1997) Visual and somatosensory information about object shape control manipulative fingertip forces. J Neurosci 17:4486–4499Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Monzée J, Lamarre Y, Smith AM (2003) The effects of digital anesthesia on force control using a precision grip. J Neurophysiol 89:672–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen KH, Dammann JF, Boback JL, Tenore FV, Otto KJ, Gaunt RA, Bensmaia SJ (2014) The effect of chronic intracortical microstimulation on the electrode-tissue interface, J Neural Eng 11:026004. Kim S, Callier T, Tabot GA, Gaunt RA, Tenore FV, Bensmaia SJ (2015) Behavioral assessment of sensitivity to intracortical microstimulation of primate somatosensory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 201509265Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dadarlat MC, O’Doherty JE, Sabes PN (2014) A learning-based approach to artificial sensory feedback leads to optimal integration. Nat Neurosci. doi: 10.1038/nn.3883 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romo R, Hernández A, Zainos A, Salinas E (1998) Somatosensory discrimination based on cortical microstimulation. Nature 392:387–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Doherty JE, Lebedev MA, Ifft PJ, Zhuang KZ, Shokur S, Bleuler H, Nicolelis MAL (2011) Active tactile exploration using a brain-machine-brain interface. Nature 479:228–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flesher SN, Collinger JL, Foldes ST, Weiss JM, Downey JE, Tyler-Kabara EC, Bensmaia SJ, Schwartz AB, Boninger ML, Gaunt, RA (2016) Intracortical microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex. Sci Transl Med 8(361):361ra141–361ra141Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding MC, Whitford AS, Schwartz AB (2008) Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 453(7198):1098–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tabot GA, Dammann JF, Berg JA, Tenore FV, Boback JL, Vogelstein RJ, Bensmaia SJ (2013) Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(45):18279–18284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saal HP, Harvey MA, Bensmaia SJ (2015) Rate and timing of cortical responses driven by separate sensory channels. Elife 4:e10450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Center for the Neural Basis of CognitionPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Department of Veterans Affairs Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  6. 6.Department of Organismal Biology and AnatomyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  7. 7.Department of NeurobiologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations