000825324 001__ 825324
000825324 005__ 20240619091224.0
000825324 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1088/2057-1976/2/5/05517
000825324 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/15762
000825324 037__ $$aFZJ-2016-07787
000825324 082__ $$a610
000825324 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)128705$$aMaybeck, Vanessa$$b0$$ufzj
000825324 245__ $$aAn evaluation of extracellular MEA versus optogenetic stimulation of cortical neurons
000825324 260__ $$aBristol$$bIOP Publ.$$c2016
000825324 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000825324 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000825324 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1509978372_25965
000825324 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000825324 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000825324 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000825324 520__ $$aObjective. The importance of extracellular neural stimulation has driven the development of multiple technologies. Of growing importance is accurately stimulating single neurons in dense networks. It is unlikely that one approach is best for all applications, however comparisons between methods are lacking. We aim to show the strengths and suitable applications for two tools; micro-electrode array (MEA) stimulation and optogenetics. Approach. We compare MEA-based electrical stimulation to Channelrhodopsin 2 based optogenetic stimulation of dissociated cortical neurons in vitro. Effectivity is compared based on stimulation success rate, spatial and temporal accuracy, and reproducibility. We discuss how necessities of each method may limit performance in each category. Main Results. MEA stimulation outperformed optogenetic stimulation in the speed with which an action potential could be generated. The relation between the size of the stimulating point (electrode or illumination spot) and the area of stimulated tissue was similar in both methods. However, technical difficulties in maintaining low impedance from very small electrodes allows higher spatial specificity in optogenetic stimulation. If simultaneous recording and stimulation are desired, MEA stimulation artifacts were far more impairing than light induce artifacts on MEA recordings. Significance. The like versus like comparison of stimulation technologies provides an incomplete evaluation tool for researchers desiring to apply these technologies. This comparison highlights advantages for specific applications and should promote more cross-topic evaluations.
000825324 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-552$$a552 - Engineering Cell Function (POF3-552)$$cPOF3-552$$fPOF III$$x0
000825324 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)140152$$aSchnitker, Jan$$b1$$ufzj
000825324 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)157679$$aLi, Wenfang$$b2$$ufzj
000825324 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHeuschkel, M.$$b3
000825324 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)128713$$aOffenhäusser, Andreas$$b4$$eCorresponding author$$ufzj
000825324 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2844309-3$$a10.1088/2057-1976/2/5/05517$$n5$$p055017$$tBiomedical physics & engineering express$$v2$$x2057-1976$$y2016
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_Biomed._Phys._Eng._Express_2_055017.pdf$$yRestricted
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_Biomed._Phys._Eng._Express_2_055017.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yRestricted
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.gif?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yOpenAccess
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.jpg?subformat=icon-1440$$xicon-1440$$yOpenAccess
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.jpg?subformat=icon-180$$xicon-180$$yOpenAccess
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.jpg?subformat=icon-640$$xicon-640$$yOpenAccess
000825324 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324/files/Maybeck_2016_BPEX.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yOpenAccess
000825324 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:825324$$pdnbdelivery$$pVDB$$pdriver$$popen_access$$popenaire
000825324 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)128705$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
000825324 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)140152$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b1$$kFZJ
000825324 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)157679$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b2$$kFZJ
000825324 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)128713$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b4$$kFZJ
000825324 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-552$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-550$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lBioSoft – Fundamentals for future Technologies in the fields of Soft Matter and Life Sciences$$vEngineering Cell Function$$x0
000825324 9141_ $$y2016
000825324 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000825324 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000825324 920__ $$lyes
000825324 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)ICS-8-20110106$$kICS-8$$lBioelektronik$$x0
000825324 9801_ $$aFullTexts
000825324 980__ $$ajournal
000825324 980__ $$aVDB
000825324 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000825324 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)ICS-8-20110106
000825324 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBI-3-20200312