scholarly journals Review of signal distortion through metal microelectrode recording circuits and filters

2008 ◽  
Vol 169 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Nelson ◽  
Pierre Pouget ◽  
Erik A. Nilsen ◽  
Craig D. Patten ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schall
Keyword(s):  
Signal Distortion ◽  
Microelectrode Recording ◽  
Metal Microelectrode

Improving GPS and Galileo Precise Data Processing Based on Calibration of Signal Distortion Biases

Measurement ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 108981
Author(s):  
Xiaopeng Gong ◽  
Shengfeng Gu ◽  
Fu Zheng ◽  
Qiong Wu ◽  
Song Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Processing ◽  
Signal Distortion ◽  
Precise Data

scholarly journals Recording seismic reflections using rigidly interconnected geophones

Geophysics ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 1838-1842 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. M. Schmeissner ◽  
K. T. Spikes ◽  
D. W. Steeples
Keyword(s):  
Wave Propagation ◽  
Data Acquisition ◽  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Spatial Sampling ◽  
P Wave ◽  
Signal Distortion ◽  
Reflection And Refraction ◽  
First Arrival ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Seismic Reflections

Ultrashallow seismic reflection surveys require dense spatial sampling during data acquisition, which increases their cost. In previous efforts to find ways to reduce these costs, we connected geophones rigidly to pieces of channel iron attached to a farm implement. This method allowed us to plant the geophones in the ground quickly and automatically. The rigidly interconnected geophones used in these earlier studies detected first‐arrival energy along with minor interfering seismic modes, but they did not detect seismic reflections. To examine further the feasibility of developing rigid geophone emplacement systems to detect seismic reflections, we experimented with four pieces of channel iron, each 2.7 m long and 10 cm wide. Each segment was equipped with 18 geophones rigidly attached to the channel iron at 15‐cm intervals, and the spikes attached to all 18 geophones were pushed into the ground simultaneously. The geophones detected both refracted and reflected energy; however, no significant signal distortion or interference attributable to the rigid coupling of the geophones to the channel iron was observed in the data. The interfering seismic modes mentioned from the previous experiments were not detected, nor was any P‐wave propagation noted within the channel iron. These results show promise for automating and reducing the cost of ultrashallow seismic reflection and refraction surveys.

Clinical outcomes of asleep vs awake deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease

Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (19) ◽  
pp. 1944-1950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Brodsky ◽  
Shannon Anderson ◽  
Charles Murchison ◽  
Mara Seier ◽  
Jennifer Wilhelm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Electrode Placement ◽  
Microelectrode Recording ◽  
Imaging Guidance ◽  
Motor Outcomes ◽  
Deep Brain

Objective:To compare motor and nonmotor outcomes at 6 months of asleep deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) using intraoperative imaging guidance to confirm electrode placement vs awake DBS using microelectrode recording to confirm electrode placement.Methods:DBS candidates with PD referred to Oregon Health & Science University underwent asleep DBS with imaging guidance. Six-month outcomes were compared to those of patients who previously underwent awake DBS by the same surgeon and center. Assessments included an “off”-levodopa Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) II and III, the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire, motor diaries, and speech fluency.Results:Thirty participants underwent asleep DBS and 39 underwent awake DBS. No difference was observed in improvement of UPDRS III (+14.8 ± 8.9 vs +17.6 ± 12.3 points, p = 0.19) or UPDRS II (+9.3 ± 2.7 vs +7.4 ± 5.8 points, p = 0.16). Improvement in “on” time without dyskinesia was superior in asleep DBS (+6.4 ± 3.0 h/d vs +1.7 ± 1.2 h/d, p = 0.002). Quality of life scores improved in both groups (+18.8 ± 9.4 in awake, +8.9 ± 11.5 in asleep). Improvement in summary index (p = 0.004) and subscores for cognition (p = 0.011) and communication (p < 0.001) were superior in asleep DBS. Speech outcomes were superior in asleep DBS, both in category (+2.77 ± 4.3 points vs −6.31 ± 9.7 points (p = 0.0012) and phonemic fluency (+1.0 ± 8.2 points vs −5.5 ± 9.6 points, p = 0.038).Conclusions:Asleep DBS for PD improved motor outcomes over 6 months on par with or better than awake DBS, was superior with regard to speech fluency and quality of life, and should be an option considered for all patients who are candidates for this treatment.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier:NCT01703598.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD undergoing DBS, asleep intraoperative CT imaging–guided implantation is not significantly different from awake microelectrode recording–guided implantation in improving motor outcomes at 6 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document