% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Maybeck:825324,
      author       = {Maybeck, Vanessa and Schnitker, Jan and Li, Wenfang and
                      Heuschkel, M. and Offenhäusser, Andreas},
      title        = {{A}n evaluation of extracellular {MEA} versus optogenetic
                      stimulation of cortical neurons},
      journal      = {Biomedical physics $\&$ engineering express},
      volume       = {2},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {2057-1976},
      address      = {Bristol},
      publisher    = {IOP Publ.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2016-07787},
      pages        = {055017},
      year         = {2016},
      abstract     = {Objective. 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.},
      cin          = {ICS-8},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)ICS-8-20110106},
      pnm          = {552 - Engineering Cell Function (POF3-552)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-552},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.1088/2057-1976/2/5/05517},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/825324},
}