Interfaces with the Peripheral Nerve for the Control of Neuroprostheses - International Review of Neurobiology - page 67

Extraneural Intraneural Regenerative

F

E

G

D

C

B

A

Invasiveness/nerve damage

Figure 2.1 Electrodes used to interface peripheral nerves classified according to their
invasiveness and selectivity. Images show examples of (A) cuff electrode, (B) flat inter-
face nerve electrode (FINE), (C) longitudinal intrafascicular electrode (LIFE), (D) trans-
verse intrafascicular multichannel electrode (TIME), (E) multielectrode array (USEA),
(F) sieve electrode, and (G) microchannel electrode.

lumen of the tube ( Hoffer & Loeb, 1980 ). Cuff electrodes allow for precise
positioning and significantly reduce stimulus intensity compared to surface
and epimysial electrodes ( Loeb & Peck, 1996 ), since the cuff-insulating
sheath limits current leak out of the cuff-nerve space. Compared to
intraneural electrodes, the surrounding approach of cuff electrodes reduces
their selectivity, making them able to record and stimulate only sensorimo-
tor large myelinated fibers and predominantly those located at superficial
locations ( Badia, Boretius, Andreu, et al., 2011 ). On the other hand, the
reduced invasiveness of these electrodes makes them easier to handle and
safer to implant ( Naples, Mortimer, & Yuen, 1990 ). In order to improve
cuff's selectivity and performance, several strategies, such as multisite cuff
electrodes ( Navarro, Valderrama, Stieglitz, & Sch¨ ttler, 2001; Tarler &
Mortimer, 2004; Veraart,Grill, &Mortimer, 1993;Walter et al., 1997 ), inno-
vative cuff structures ( Tyler &Durand, 1997 ), complex modes of stimulation
( Grill & Mortimer, 1996; Navarro et al., 2001 ), and advanced processing
algorithms ( Raspopovic, Carpaneto, Udina, Navarro, & Micera, 2010;