Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Sensory and Motor Systems

Cortical Neuroprosthesis Merges Visible and Invisible Light Without Impairing Native Sensory Function

Eric E. Thomson, Ivan Zea, William Windham, Yohann Thenaisie, Cameron Walker, Jason Pedowitz, Wendy França, Ana L. Graneiro and Miguel A.L. Nicolelis
eNeuro 7 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0262-17.2017; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0262-17.2017
Eric E. Thomson
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
4Duke Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivan Zea
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Windham
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William Windham
Yohann Thenaisie
6Department of Biology, École Normale Supérieure De Lyon, Lyon, 69342, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yohann Thenaisie
Cameron Walker
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cameron Walker
Jason Pedowitz
7School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jason Pedowitz
Wendy França
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ana L. Graneiro
8Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ana L. Graneiro
Miguel A.L. Nicolelis
1Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
2Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
3Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
4Duke Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710
5Edmond and Lily Safra International Institute of Neuroscience of Natal, Natal, 59066-060, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Miguel A.L. Nicolelis
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Methods. A, Setup of the IR behavior chamber. Four reward ports line the walls of the circular chamber. The angle θ indicates how far apart adjacent ports are. Inset shows design of each individual port. B, Illustration of the mapping from four IR detectors (1–4) to four microstimulating electrode locations (N1–N4) in V1. C, Dorsal view of rat skull showing the placement of the S1 and V1 stimulating electrode arrays. The green and blue zones correspond to the S1 barrel field (S1BF) and V1, respectively, and these areas were reconstructed from (Paxinos and Watson, 2007). The dark horizontal and vertical reference lines intersect at bregma, and each small square in the grid is 1 mm2. D, Transforms from IR levels detected in individual IR detectors to microstimulation frequency in individual stimulating channels. The black line is the original transform used in previous articles, and some animals in the present article. The red line shows the optimized transform (see Methods). E, Design of electrode arrays consisting of two bundles of eight stimulating electrodes placed 2 mm apart (see Methods for more details). F, Flattened cortical slice from animal implanted in V1, stained with cytochrome-oxidase. Inset shows detail of macrovibrissae barrels. Oval at bottom (caudal) shows the location of tissue damage from the V1 implant. Reference line: 1 mm.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Discriminating IR light with visual cortex. A, Learning curve for IR-discrimination task using V1 (n = 6 animals). Note animals typically surpassed criterion (85% correct) within the first day. B, Direct comparison of learning curve for the same task with V1 implants (blue) and S1 implants (green; n = 15 for S1 implants). C, Same information as in B, but with learning curve superimposed when an animal has just a single IR sensor on its head (single-sensor learning data are from a previous study [Thomson et al. 2013]; n = 4 animals). D, Trial-based moving average analysis of performance in IR discrimination task. The curve shows percentage correct as a function of trial number (moving average of 20 trials) from same data shown in A. E, Same analysis as in C, but with S1-implanted animals shown in green for direct comparison. F, Performance in IR-discrimination task as a function of angle θ between the ports (see Fig. 1A). Includes data from V1 and S1 implanted animals with four IR sensors, as well as data from S1-implanted animals with a single IR sensor for comparison (blue, green, and red lines respectively with mean ± SEM percentage correct). G, Performance of naive V1- and S1-implanted animals (mean ± SEM percentage correct), that were not pretrained on a visual discrimination task (solid lines). Data from S1-implanted animals that were pretrained on a visual discrimination task are included for comparison. There is no significant difference, among any of the three groups, in the number of sessions it takes to reach 85% correct in the task (p > 0.05, two-tailed t test).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Neuronal responses to intracortical microstimulation in V1. A, Example of reduction of four-element full representation of electrical stimulation vector (four-element vector where each number represents frequency of microstimulation at a different location) down to two-dimensional population vector. There are five examples from five different time points T1–T5. B, Geometric representation of the population vectors from A. C, Stimulus population vectors from all trials in a session, with mean of first and last three substimuli overlaid in red. The black diamond outline is the convex hull of stimulus population vectors, showing the perimeter of the set of all possible vectors. Note that only a fraction of this set is actually presented in a given behavioral session. See text for more details. D, Neuronal data from four representative units. PSTHs show mean response to first three and last three microstimulation pulses, averaged over all trials in the session (note there are different axis limits for the different PSTHs). Associated with each PSTH is an IR-RF, a contour plot that shows the mean number of spikes in response to each stimulus population vector, with hot colors representing high firing rates. E, Distribution of all 240 IR-RF centers from all units recorded: note they tend to concentrate at the two medial corners of the stimulus space, although these are fairly rare events (C). F, Polar count histogram illustrates the medial, rather than anterior, concentration of IR-RF angular distribution. G, H, Same as E and F, but from data from S1 from a previous study (Hartmann et al. 2016). Note the anterior distribution of the IR-RF centers, much closer to the distribution of the stimuli.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Visual-IR integration task. A, Schematic of the task. In a cylindrical chamber with the same ports shown in Fig. 1A, four stimuli are randomly assigned to the ports. The target stimulus is the one with both visual and IR lights on. The IR distractor has only an IR light on, the visual distractor only a visual light, and there is one port with no light activated. B, Learning curve from three animals trained on the visual-IR integration task (implants in V1). The discontinuous right portion of the curve shows the last four sessions using an optimized frequency (see text). C, Comparison of learning curves between V1- and S1-implanted rats in the visual-IR integration task (n = 3 animals for each group). D, Same data as in C, but with trial-based moving average (moving window average taken with 20 trials).

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Effects of S1 prosthesis on whisker discrimination. A, Aperture-width discrimination task. After the movable bars making up aperture move to the desired position, the rat enters the stimulus chamber, sweeps its whiskers across the aperture (movable bars controlled by the computer), and activates the central nose poke (CNP). The animal then retreats into the stimulus chamber and pokes in the right or left reward port depending on the aperture width. B, Psychometric curve from a single session in the 14-width aperture-width discrimination task. The points are the mean proportion of left responses at each width; the red line is the best minimum least-squares fit to the points, fitted using a Weibull function. C, As in B, but in an animal with worse performance (lower maximum slope of the curve and lower peak performance at each end of the spectrum). D, Performance of stimulated and matched control animal in the whisker discrimination task during different stages of the experiment. Before stimulation (Baseline), while learning the IR discrimination task via ICMS (Stimulation), and after whiskers were clipped (Clipped). See text for details. E, Mean ± SEM change in performance after the two transitions illustrated in D. ΔStim, transition from baseline to stimulation; ΔClip, transition from normal stimulation to stimulation with whiskers clipped. This analysis is restricted only to 54/78-mm widths, and includes eight animals (four stimulated/four control for the Δstim transition) and seven animals (four stimulated/three control) for the Δclip transition (one control animal stopped performing the task after whisker clipping). F, Same as E, but for the full multiple-aperture with discrimination task (either 12 or 14 widths). This includes six animals for the first transition and five animals for the second (as before, one control animal stopped behaving after whisker clipping). Percentage correct is calculated as the integral under the best Weibull fit to the psychometric curve (see Methods). G, Change in behavioral sensitivity, or the measure of the maximum slope of the best fit curves to the psychometric data, with each transition in the task. Lower slope means less behavioral sensitivity.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Neuronal responses during the aperture-discrimination task. A, Four example PSTHs during the aperture-width discrimination task described in Fig. 5A, from control animals that were not stimulated. Bin widths are 50 ms. Reference lines show mean ± SD during the baseline period (the period before –400 ms). Time 0 is the time of stimulus onset, when the whiskers contact the aperture. B, Set of all 104 PSTHs from two control animals. d, door opens to start trial; s, stimulus onset (whiskers contact aperture); t, tone sounds indicating rat has reached end of stimulus chamber. Spike counts in B are calculated by subtracting the mean spike count during the baseline period. PSTHs below the gray line are those for which there was no significant response. C, D, Same as A and B but for the stimulated animals (n = 117 neurons). E, Mean ± SEM PSTH for all neurons for control (red) and stimulated (black) groups.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Statistical analysis

    FigureTestQuantities comparedP-valueEffect size
    2BTwo-tailed t testS1 vs. V1: num sessions to learn0.00321.6259
    2ETwo-tailed t testS1 vs. V1: num trials to learn0.00471.6048
    2FANOVAV1: percent correct (PC) vs. difficulty0.00150.9904
    2FTwo-way ANOVAFactor 1 (angle): mean PC0.00030.4261
    2FTwo-way ANOVAFactor 2 (implant location): mean PC0.61860.043
    2FTwo-way ANOVAInteraction (angle × location): mean PC0.50240.1336
    2GTwo-tailed t testNaive V1 vs. pretrained S1: num sessions to learn0.85180.1201
    2GTwo-tailed t testNaive S1 vs. V1: num sessions to learn0.64330.4082
    3EF testStimulus location vs. receptive field peak correlation0.70.0259
    4CTwo-tailed t testS1 vs. V1: num sessions to learn integrated task10
    4DTwo-tailed t testS1 vs. V1: num trials to learn integrated task0.62580.4306
    5ETwo-way ANOVAFactor 1 (animal group): PC for two-width case (54/78)0.54850.0833
    5ETwo-way ANOVAFactor 2 (treatment): PC for two-width case0.00041.115
    5ETwo-way ANOVAInteraction (group × treatment): PC two widths0.85970.4738
    5ETwo-tailed t testTwo-width PC change versus zero: after stimulation0.01361.1567
    5ETwo-tailed t testTwo-width PC change versus zero: after clipping0.00142.0877
    5FTwo-way ANOVAFactor 1 (animal group): PC multiwidth (12/14 widths)0.91870.026
    5FTwo-way ANOVAFactor 2 (treatment): PC multiwidth0.01791.1543
    5FTwo-way ANOVAInteraction (group × treatment): PC multiwidth0.63840.1217
    5FTwo-tailed t testMultiwidth PC change versus zero: after stimulation0.1530.6874
    5FTwo-tailed t testMultiwidth PC change versus zero: after clipping0.0092.1161
    5GTwo-way ANOVAFactor 1 (animal group): sensitivity0.71110.0833
    5GTwo-way ANOVAFactor 2 (treatment): sensitivity0.01051.115
    5GTwo-way ANOVAInteraction (group × treatment): sensitivity0.08680.4738
    5GTwo-tailed t testSensitivity change versus zero: group after stim0.01071.6174
    5GTwo-tailed t testSensitivity change versus zero: group after clip0.34490.4786
    6EChi-squared testProportion w/anticipatory response in stim vs. control0.0090.18
    6EChi-squared testProportion w/response to stim in stim vs. control0.0530.13
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 4 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 4, Issue 6
November/December 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cortical Neuroprosthesis Merges Visible and Invisible Light Without Impairing Native Sensory Function
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Cortical Neuroprosthesis Merges Visible and Invisible Light Without Impairing Native Sensory Function
Eric E. Thomson, Ivan Zea, William Windham, Yohann Thenaisie, Cameron Walker, Jason Pedowitz, Wendy França, Ana L. Graneiro, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis
eNeuro 7 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0262-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0262-17.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Cortical Neuroprosthesis Merges Visible and Invisible Light Without Impairing Native Sensory Function
Eric E. Thomson, Ivan Zea, William Windham, Yohann Thenaisie, Cameron Walker, Jason Pedowitz, Wendy França, Ana L. Graneiro, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis
eNeuro 7 December 2017, 4 (6) ENEURO.0262-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0262-17.2017
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • behavior
  • multisensory integration
  • Neuroprosthesis
  • plasticity

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Spatially Extensive LFP Correlations Identify Slow-Wave Sleep in Marmoset Sensorimotor Cortex
  • What Is the Difference between an Impulsive and a Timed Anticipatory Movement?
  • Odor Experience Stabilizes Glomerular Output Representations in Two Mouse Models of Autism
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.