Properties of the Stimulus Router System, a Novel Neural Prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various types of neural prostheses (NPs) have been developed to restore motor function after neural injury. Surface NPs are noninvasive and inexpensive, but are often poorly selective, activating nontargeted muscles and cutaneous sensory nerves that can cause discomfort or pain. Implantable NPs are highly selective, but invasive and costly. The stimulus router system (SRS) is a novel NP consisting of fully implanted leads that "capture" and route some of the current flowing between a pair of surface electrodes to the vicinity of a target nerve. An SRS lead consists of a "pick-up" terminal that is implanted subcutaneously under one of the surface electrodes and a "delivery" terminal that is secured on or near the target nerve. We have published a preliminary report on the basic properties of the SRS [L. S. Gan , "A new means of transcutaneous coupling for neural prostheses," IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 509-517, Mar. 2007]. Here, we further characterize the SRS and identify aspects that maximize its performance as a motor NP. The surface current needed to activate nerves with an SRS, was found to depend on the proximity of the delivery terminal(s) to the nerve, electrode configurations, contact areas of the surface electrodes and implanted terminals, and the distance between the surface anode and the delivery terminal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".