ThomasStarck (Talk | contribs) |
ThomasStarck (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
<div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">1. ENG-EMG selectivity:</h3></div> | <div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">1. ENG-EMG selectivity:</h3></div> | ||
<div class="block full"> | <div class="block full"> | ||
− | <p></p> | + | <p>The body is made so that a nerve is never very far from a muscle. However, the triggering and control of muscle contractions uses a similar mechanism to the propagation of nerve impulses. Thus, the vicinity of a muscle is the seat of important extracellular currents because of the large number of muscle fibers excited simultaneously. The potential differences associated with these currents are called EMG, for electromyogram. Action potentials in muscle have mV amplitude, larger than a neural signal, and their spectra overlap. Minimizing these forms of interference is there for essential.</p> |
+ | <p>In order to attenuate the EMG signal, tripolar cuff electrode are used (Cf. Figure 3). For the nerve signal, the main point of the cuff is that it reduces the volume of tissue in which the action currents flow and, therefore, increases the potential differences between the electrodes. For the EMG interference, the fact that the cuff is a tube of uniform cross-sectional area means that the gradient inside, due to each external source, is approximately constant and, therefore, the potential differences between the pairs of electrodes are equal and cancel. How they are cancelled depends on the amplifier configuration but the principle is that out-of-cuff signals are canceled while neural signals do not.</p> | ||
+ | <p>The variation of the ENG is not linear over the entire length of the electrode, it is at a maximum in the center of the cuff. Moreover, the average value of the EMG potential is zero or close.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Thus, the impact of EMG on the measurement is significantly attenuated, while the ENG is preserved</p> | ||
+ | <img src=""> | ||
+ | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 3: </b>Comparison of the potential in the cuff due to EMG and ENG sources. </div> | ||
+ | <p>The electronic realization of this treatment is very simple, it can be done in two different ways using either one or three differential amplifiers, these structures are named respectively "quasi-tripole" and "true-tripole" (Cf. Figure 4)</p> | ||
+ | <img src=""> | ||
+ | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 4: </b>(a) The QT amplifier configuration connected to a tripolar cuff. (b) The TT amplifier configuration.</div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">2. Type of nerve fiber selectivity:</h3></div> | <div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">2. Type of nerve fiber selectivity:</h3></div> | ||
<div class="block full"> | <div class="block full"> | ||
− | <p></p> | + | <p>Nerves carry a lot of different neural signals, with both afferent and efferent traffic. However, by recording the signal we reduce it to only one artificial signal and we lose a lot of information. As the different types of signals are transmitted by fibers of different diameters, it should be interesting to select the fiber we record according to its diameter.</p> |
+ | <p>The method (Cf. Figure 5) uses a double differential array of amplifiers ('tripole amplifiers') and, for each selected velocity (of either sign), artificial time delays, as well as an adder and a narrow-band filter. An action potential transiting the nerve will be perceived in the same way by each tripole, but with delays inversely proportional to the speed of propagation of the action potential. If this time offset is compensated by the delay added by the measurement system, the action potentials appear simultaneously at the output of the delay stages. Thus, summing them to each other, the amplitude of the action potential is amplified. This system makes it possible to amplify the measurement for this particular action potential. Whereas, for another action potential having a different speed or direction of propagation, the amplification will not take place because the delay implemented in the system does not correspond to the delay due to the propagation of the action potential. This system is therefore selective for a given propagation speed.</p> | ||
+ | <img src=""> | ||
+ | <div class="legend"><b>Figure 5: </b>Multi-electrode cuff (MEC), array of tripole amplifiers and signal processing unit for selecting one velocity. </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">3. Spatial selectivity:</h3></div> | <div class="block title"><h3 style="text-align: left;">3. Spatial selectivity:</h3></div> | ||
<div class="block full"> | <div class="block full"> | ||
− | <p></p> | + | <p>Methods aim to increase the spatial selectivity of extra-neural electrodes to discriminate active fascicles, in order to determine the activity of each nerve branch.</p> |
+ | <p>One way to increase the spatial selectivity is to increase the number of measure points. The issue is to separate the sources. In this context, in order to increase the spatial selectivity of the extra-neural electrodes, the multipolar cuffs or FINE electrode have been designed. These structures make it possible to increase the number of contacts, thus the number of measured signals.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Another way is to use algorithms. Blind source separation techniques are able to decompose fascicular signals from FINE electrodes. Several other methods have been described in the literature. They aim to localize or separate nerve trunk signals. For instance, Neurofuzzy algorithms use an artificial neural network.</p> | ||
+ | <p>We can also mention the method based on antenna array beamforming. This seems to be one of the most advanced method to distinguish fascicular activity inside a nerve. It would be possible to distinguish up to five active fascicles at the same time.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 15 October 2018
MEMBRANE
When manipulating genetically engineered organisms, it is crucial to guarantee the confinement of these organisms. In our case, we want the genetically modified bacteria to stay at the interface between the prosthesis and the external organic medium. At the same time, one of the main issues our project wants to tackle is the conduction of the neuron influx to the prosthesis. The answer to these questions came as a double solution: confinement of the bacteria by conductive nanoporous membranes. The membrane’s nanoporosity allows substances produced by our modified biofilm to pass through the membrane, but the bacteria remain confined. We tested the conductivity and biocompatibility of two types of membranes.
Membrane
Nerve modelisation
As seen in the other parts of this wiki, we chose to use an nanoporous membrane in our device. The first goal of the membrane was to confine our biofilm, so it does not escape the prosthesis. Moreover, we also used our membrane as a conductive electrode. This solution was interesting since we didn’t have enough time to develop an entire electrical device which collect and treat the signal of the nerves. However, we know we still need to improve our interface if we want the patient to fully control his prosthesis. That is why we decided to look at what is already made in this field. So, first, we detailed how it is possible to model the electrical characteristics of a nerve. Then, we searched information on electrodes and signal treatment.