Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles


Patients with spinal cord injury lack the connections between brain and spinal cord circuits that are essential for voluntary movement. Clinical systems that achieve muscle contraction through functional electrical stimulation (FES) have proven to be effective in allowing patients with tetraplegia to regain control of hand movements and to achieve a greater measure of independence in daily activities1,2. In existing clinical systems, the patient uses residual proximal limb movements to trigger pre-programmed stimulation that causes the paralysed muscles to contract, allowing use of one or two basic grasps. Instead, we have developed an FES system in primates that is controlled by recordings made from microelectrodes permanently implanted in the brain. We simulated some of the effects of the paralysis caused by C5 or C6 spinal cord injury3 by injecting rhesus monkeys with a local anaesthetic to block the median and ulnar nerves at the elbow. Then, using recordings from approximately 100 neurons in the motor cortex, we predicted the intended activity of several of the paralysed muscles, and used these predictions to control the intensity of stimulation of the same muscles. This process essentially bypassed the spinal cord, restoring to the monkeys voluntary control of their paralysed muscles. This achievement is a major advance towards similar restoration of hand function in human patients through brain-controlled FES. We anticipate that in human patients, this neuroprosthesis would allow much more flexible and dexterous use of the hand than is possible with existing FES systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Brain-controlled FES.
Figure 2: Grasp-related raw data collected during normal conditions.
Figure 3: Grasp performance during four consecutive brain-controlled FES trials.
Figure 4: FES used to produce controlled palmar grasp force during the palmar grasp task.


  1. Keith, M. W. et al. Implantable functional neuromuscular stimulation in the tetraplegic hand. J. Hand Surg. Am. 14, 524–530 (1989)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Peckham, P. H. et al. Efficacy of an implanted neuroprosthesis for restoring hand grasp in tetraplegia: a multicenter study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 82, 1380–1388 (2001)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pohlmeyer, E. A., Jordon, L. R., Kim, P. & Miller, L. E. A fully implanted drug delivery system for peripheral nerve blocks in behaving animals. J. Neurosci. Methods 182, 165–172 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. International. Campaign for Cures of Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis. (2011)

  5. Anderson, K. D. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J. Neurotrauma 21, 1371–1383 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Popovic, M. R., Popovic, D. B. & Keller, T. Neuroprostheses for grasping. Neurol. Res. 24, 443–452 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kilgore, K. L. et al. An implanted upper-extremity neuroprosthesis. Follow-up of five patients. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 79, 533–541 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Evarts, E. V. Relation of pyramidal tract activity to force exerted during voluntary movement. J. Neurophysiol. 31, 14–27 (1968)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Humphrey, D. R., Schmidt, E. M. & Thompson, W. D. Predicting measures of motor performance from multiple cortical spike trains. Science 170, 758–761 (1970)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Carmena, J. M. et al. Learning to control a brain–machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biol. 1, e42 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gupta, R. & Ashe, J. Offline decoding of end-point forces using neural ensembles: application to a brain–machine interface. Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 254–262 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fagg, A. H., Ojakangas, G. W., Miller, L. E. & Hatsopoulos, N. G. Kinetic trajectory decoding using motor cortical ensembles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 487–496 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pohlmeyer, E. A., Solla, S. A., Perreault, E. J. & Miller, L. E. Prediction of upper limb muscle activity from motor cortical discharge during reaching. J. Neural Eng. 4, 369–379 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cherian, A., Krucoff, M. O. & Miller, L. E. Motor cortical prediction of EMG: evidence that a kinetic brain-machine interface may be robust across altered movement dynamics. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 564–575 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pohlmeyer, E. A. et al. Real-time control of the hand by intracortically controlled functional neuromuscular stimulation. IEEE 10th Int. Conf. Rehab. Robotics 454–458 (2007)

  16. Pohlmeyer, E. A. et al. Toward the restoration of hand use to a paralyzed monkey: Brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation of forearm muscles. PLoS ONE 4, e5924 (2009)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oby, E. R. et al. in Statistical Signal Processing for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology (ed. O’Weiss, K.G. ) 369–406 (Academic Press, 2010)

  18. Moritz, C. T., Perlmutter, S. I. & Fetz, E. E. Direct control of paralysed muscles by cortical neurons. Nature 456, 639–642 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Adams, M. M. & Hicks, A. L. Spasticity after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 43, 577–586 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kern, H. et al. Denervated muscles in humans: limitations and problems of currently used functional electrical stimulation training protocols. Artif. Organs 26, 216–218 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Waters, R. L., Adkins, R. H., Yakura, J. S. & Sie, I. Motor and sensory recovery following complete tetraplegia. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 74, 242–247 (1993)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bryden, A. M. et al. An implanted neuroprosthesis for high tetraplegia. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil. 10, 38–52 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nightingale, E. J., Raymond, J., Middleton, J. W., Crosbie, J. & Davis, G. M. Benefits of FES gait in a spinal cord injured population. Spinal Cord 45, 646–657 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Agarwal, S. et al. Long-term user perceptions of an implanted neuroprosthesis for exercise, standing, and transfers after spinal cord injury. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 40, 241–252 (2003)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fitzwater, R. A personal user’s view of functional electrical stimulation cycling. Artif. Organs 26, 284–286 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported in part by grant NS053603 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to L.E.M. and a post-doctoral fellowship from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec to C.E., with further support from the Chicago Community Trust through the Searle Program for Neurological Restoration at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. We also acknowledge the technical assistance of D. Tyler and K. Kilgore as well as the surgical assistance of J. Ko and S. Paisley Agnew.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



L.E.M. conceived, designed and supervised the basic experiments. C.E. and E.R.O. performed the experiments. M.J.B. carried out software development. C.E. analysed the data and prepared figures. L.E.M. and C.E. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. E. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods and Results, and Supplementary Figures 1-5. (PDF 418 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

This movie shoes several examples of Monkey T executing the ball grasp experiment during FES and catch trials. (MOV 3319 kb)

Supplementary Movie 2

This movie shows several examples of Monkey J executing the ball grasp experiment during normal, FES and catch trials. (MOV 3899 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ethier, C., Oby, E., Bauman, M. et al. Restoration of grasp following paralysis through brain-controlled stimulation of muscles. Nature 485, 368–371 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing