Mikhail Lebedev

Dr. Mikhail Lebedev


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2006 in Trends in Neurosciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev
MNMiguel A.L. Nicolelis
Miguel A.L. Nicolelis

13 October 2003 in PLOS Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JCJose M Carmena
Jose M Carmena
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev
RCRoy E Crist
Roy E Crist
JOJoseph E O'Doherty
Joseph E O'Doherty
DSDavid M Santucci
David M Santucci
MNMiguel A L Nicolelis
Miguel A L Nicolelis
Reaching and grasping in primates depend on the coordination of neural activity in large frontoparietal ensembles. Here we demonstrate that primates can learn to reach and grasp virtual objects by controlling a robot arm through a closed-loop brain–machine interface (BMIc) that uses multiple mathematical models to extract several motor parameters (i.e., hand position, velocity, gripping force, and the EMGs of multiple arm muscles) from the electrical activity of frontoparietal neuronal ensembles. As single neurons typically contribute to the encoding of several motor parameters, we observed that high BMIc accuracy required recording from large neuronal ensembles. Continuous BMIc operation by monkeys led to significant improvements in both model predictions and behavioral performance. Using visual feedback, monkeys succeeded in producing robot reach-and-grasp movements even when their arms did not move. Learning to operate the BMIc was paralleled by functional reorganization in multiple cortical areas, suggesting that the dynamic properties of the BMIc were incorporated into motor and sensory cortical representations.

15 September 2009 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TPThomas Petermann
Thomas Petermann
TTTara C. Thiagarajan
Tara C. Thiagarajan
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev
MNMiguel A. L. Nicolelis
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
DCDante R. Chialvo
Dante R. Chialvo
DPDietmar Plenz
Dietmar Plenz
Spontaneous neuronal activity is an important property of the cerebral cortex but its spatiotemporal organization and dynamical framework remain poorly understood. Studies in reduced systems—tissue cultures, acute slices, and anesthetized rats—show that spontaneous activity forms characteristic clusters in space and time, called neuronal avalanches. Modeling studies suggest that networks with this property are poised at a critical state that optimizes input processing, information storage, and transfer, but the relevance of avalanches for fully functional cerebral systems has been controversial. Here we show that ongoing cortical synchronization in awake rhesus monkeys carries the signature of neuronal avalanches. Negative LFP deflections (nLFPs) correlate with neuronal spiking and increase in amplitude with increases in local population spike rate and synchrony. These nLFPs form neuronal avalanches that are scale-invariant in space and time and with respect to the threshold of nLFP detection. This dimension, threshold invariance, describes a fractal organization: smaller nLFPs are embedded in clusters of larger ones without destroying the spatial and temporal scale-invariance of the dynamics. These findings suggest an organization of ongoing cortical synchronization that is scale-invariant in its three fundamental dimensions—time, space, and local neuronal group size. Such scale-invariance has ontogenetic and phylogenetic implications because it allows large increases in network capacity without a fundamental reorganization of the system.

5 October 2011 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JOJoseph E. O’doherty
Joseph E. O’doherty
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev
PIPeter J. Ifft
Peter J. Ifft
KZKatie Z. Zhuang
Katie Z. Zhuang
SSSolaiman Shokur
Solaiman Shokur
MNMiguel A. L. Nicolelis
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
Brain–machine interfaces have evolved to a stage at which robotic arms can perform complex movements, such as reaching and grasping, in response to signals from the brain. Further progress, towards systems that allow dexterous control of an artificial limb, will require the development of somatosensory feedback, allowing touch to inform the use of the limb. A step towards that goal has been achieved with the demonstration of an interface that multiplexes neuronal signals from the motor cortex to control elements of a computer display with artificial tactile feedback through microstimulation of the somatosensory cortex. Monkeys learned to use this interface to move a computer cursor or hand image to explore visual targets. To discover which target would yield reward, the monkeys had to discriminate the microstimulation evoked from each target when the actuator touched the objects. Brain–machine interfaces1,2 use neuronal activity recorded from the brain to establish direct communication with external actuators, such as prosthetic arms. It is hoped that brain–machine interfaces can be used to restore the normal sensorimotor functions of the limbs, but so far they have lacked tactile sensation. Here we report the operation of a brain–machine–brain interface (BMBI) that both controls the exploratory reaching movements of an actuator and allows signalling of artificial tactile feedback through intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of the primary somatosensory cortex. Monkeys performed an active exploration task in which an actuator (a computer cursor or a virtual-reality arm) was moved using a BMBI that derived motor commands from neuronal ensemble activity recorded in the primary motor cortex. ICMS feedback occurred whenever the actuator touched virtual objects. Temporal patterns of ICMS encoded the artificial tactile properties of each object. Neuronal recordings and ICMS epochs were temporally multiplexed to avoid interference. Two monkeys operated this BMBI to search for and distinguish one of three visually identical objects, using the virtual-reality arm to identify the unique artificial texture associated with each. These results suggest that clinical motor neuroprostheses might benefit from the addition of ICMS feedback to generate artificial somatic perceptions associated with mechanical, robotic or even virtual prostheses.

1 April 2017 in Physiological Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev
MNMiguel A. L. Nicolelis
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) combine methods, approaches, and concepts derived from neurophysiology, computer science, and engineering in an effort to establish real-time bidirectional links between living brains and artificial actuators. Although theoretical propositions and some proof of concept experiments on directly linking the brains with machines date back to the early 1960s, BMI research only took off in earnest at the end of the 1990s, when this approach became intimately linked to new neurophysiological methods for sampling large-scale brain activity. The classic goals of BMIs are 1) to unveil and utilize principles of operation and plastic properties of the distributed and dynamic circuits of the brain and 2) to create new therapies to restore mobility and sensations to severely disabled patients. Over the past decade, a wide range of BMI applications have emerged, which considerably expanded these original goals. BMI studies have shown neural control over the movements of robotic and virtual actuators that enact both upper and lower limb functions. Furthermore, BMIs have also incorporated ways to deliver sensory feedback, generated from external actuators, back to the brain. BMI research has been at the forefront of many neurophysiological discoveries, including the demonstration that, through continuous use, artificial tools can be assimilated by the primate brain9s body schema. Work on BMIs has also led to the introduction of novel neurorehabilitation strategies. As a result of these efforts, long-term continuous BMI use has been recently implicated with the induction of partial neurological recovery in spinal cord injury patients.

1 July 2009 in Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MNMiguel A. L. Nicolelis
Miguel A. L. Nicolelis
MLMikhail Lebedev
Mikhail Lebedev