MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133002169 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2006.886664

A New Means of Transcutaneous Coupling for Neural Prostheses

2007· article· en· W2133002169 on OpenAlexafffund
Liu Shi Gan, A. Procházka, Troy D. Bornes, Allen A. Denington, K. Ming Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNeural ProsthesisBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceElectrodeImplantStimulationNeuroprostheticsMedicineChemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural prostheses are electronic stimulators that activate nerves to restore sensory or motor functions. Implanted neural prostheses receive command signals and in some cases energy to recharge their batteries through the skin by telemetry. Here, we describe a new approach that eliminates the implanted stimulator. Stimulus pulse trains are passed between two surface electrodes placed on the skin. An insulated lead with conductive terminals at each end is implanted inside the body. One terminal is located under the cathodal surface electrode and the other is attached to a nerve targeted for stimulation. A fraction (10%-15%) of the current flowing between the surface electrodes is routed through the implanted lead. The nerve is stimulated when the amount of routed current is sufficient. The aims of this study were to establish some basic electrical properties of the system and test long-term stability in chronic implants. Stimulation of the nerve innervating the ankle flexors produced graded force over the full physiological range at amplitudes below threshold for evoking muscle contractions under the surface electrodes. Implants remained stable for over 8 mo. The findings provide the basis for a new family of neural prostheses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207