4.5 Article

A comparison of gold versus silver electrode contacts for high-resolution gastric electrical mapping using flexible printed circuit board arrays

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 N13-N22

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/32/3/N02

关键词

slow waves; multi-electrode; isochronal mapping; activation mapping

资金

  1. American Neurogastroenterology & Motility Society (ANMS)
  2. NZ Health Research Council
  3. NIH [R01 DK64775]
  4. University of Auckland
  5. Auckland Medical Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stomach contractions are initiated and coordinated by electrical events termed slow waves, and slow wave abnormalities contribute to gastric motility disorders. Recently, flexible printed circuit board (PCB) multi-electrode arrays were introduced, facilitating high-resolution mapping of slow wave activity in humans. However PCBs with gold contacts have shown a moderately inferior signal quality to previous custom-built silver-wire platforms, potentially limiting analyses. This study determined if using silver instead of gold contacts improved flexible PCB performance. In a salt-bath test, modestly higher stimulus amplitudes were recorded from silver PCBs (mean 312, s.d. 89 mu V) than those from gold (mean 281, s.d. 85 mu V) (p < 0.001); however, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was similar (p = 0.26). In eight in vivo experimental studies, involving gastric serosal recordings from five pigs, no silver versus gold differences were found in terms of slow wave amplitudes (mean 677 versus 682 mu V; p = 0.91), SNR (mean 8.8 versus 8.8 dB; p = 0.94) or baseline drift (NRMS; mean 12.0 versus 12.1; p = 0.97). Under the prescribed conditions, flexible PCBs with silver or gold contacts provide comparable results in vivo, and contact material difference does not explain the performance difference between current-generation slow wave mapping platforms. Alternative explanations for this difference and the implications for electrode design are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据