Does impedance matter when recording spikes with polytrodes?
Joana Pereira Neto,
Adam Raymond Kampff
Posted 23 Feb 2018
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/270058 (published DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00715)
Posted 23 Feb 2018
Extracellular microelectrodes have been widely used to measure brain activity, yet there are still basic questions about the requirements for a good extracellular microelectrode. One common source of confusion is how an electrode's impedance affects the amplitude of extracellular spikes and background noise. Here we discuss how an electrode's impedance affects data quality in extracellular recordings, which is crucial for both the detection of spikes and their assignment to the correct neurons. This study employs commercial polytrodes containing 32 electrodes (177 μm2) arranged in a dense array. This allowed us to directly compare, side-by-side, the same extracellular signals measured by modified low impedance (~100 kOhm) microelectrodes with unmodified high impedance (~1 MOhm) microelectrodes. We begin with an evaluation of existing protocols to lower the impedance of the electrodes. The poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT-PSS) electrodeposition protocol is a simple, stable, and reliable method for decreasing the impedance of a microelectrode up to tenfold. We next record in vivo using polytrodes that are modified in a 'chess board' pattern, such that the signal of one neuron is detected by multiple coated and non-coated electrodes. The performance of the coated and non-coated electrodes is then compared on measures of background noise and amplitude of the detected action potentials. If the proper recording system is used, then the impedance of a microelectrode within the range of standard polytrodes (~ 0.1 to 2 MOhm) does not significantly affect data quality and spike sorting. This study should encourage neuroscientists to stop worrying about one more unknown.
- Downloaded 1,996 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 7,575
- In neuroscience: 765
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 74,616
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 73,929
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!