Low Power CMOS circuit for Spike Detection
Anshu Sarje and Pamela Abshire
Institute of Systems Research
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Email: {asarje, pabshire}@umd.edu
Abstract— We present a compact CMOS circuit implemen-
tation for detection of neural spikes from noisy background.
The circuit occupies 105 µm x 105 µm. Due to its small size,
the circuit is well suited for spike detection in large format,
high density microelectrode arrays where the chip area is the
primary limiting constraint. The design consists of an amplifier
and a differentiator to improve spike detection when the signal to
noise ratio (SNR) is low. The circuit design parameters provide a
circuit frequency response that rejects signals outside the neural
data bandwidth (250 Hz to 2.5 kHz). Most of the transistors
operate in subthreshold region and it consumes approx. 300 µW
of power. We tested our design by simulations using synthetic
data and actual neural recordings from the auditory cortex of
ferrets. ROC results show derivative approach performed better
than no processing in presence of noise.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Active on-chip microelectrode arrays (MEAs) with inte-
grated processing circuitry are widely used for recording
electrical activity from neurons. These integrated active MEA
systems facilitate multiple simultaneous single unit recordings
from a small tissue area, consume few mWatts of power
and process data in real time [1], [2], [3], [4]. The on-
chip processed signal is transmitted off-chip for storage or
further analysis. One of the major hurdles in off-chip data
transmission is the large data bandwidth created by continuous
recordings from multiple spatial locations. This problem is
aggravated as electrode array size increase [4], [5] and can
be overcome by transmitting only relevant spike data off-chip.
Since, most neural spikes are temporally sparse (for example,
cortical neurons fire at 10 Hz), a large part of the recorded data
is the unwanted noise. Neural spikes can be discriminated from
noise by using spike detection, and subsequently the identity
of the detected spike can be transmitted off-chip rather than
the waveform data. More sophisticated and computationally
intensive methods of ‘spike sorting’ are used when it is nec-
essary to extract features of spike waveforms in order classify
signals arising from different cells. Spike detection is useful
for systems like neuron based sensors where the detection of
spike occurrences is more important than classification of the
type of spike [6], [7].
Data corresponding to detected spikes can be transmitted
using lower bandwidth than waveform signal. As an example,
a 100 electrode system sampled at 10 kSamples/s generates 1
Mbytes/s of data on continuous recording (each sample being
7 bits). Using spike detection, only 1 kbytes/s is generated.
This advantage is more pronounced for larger arrays. A 1000
978-1-4244-9289-3/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
electrode system will generate 36 Gbytes of data in 1 hr,
and a system with spike detection will have only 36 Mbytes
of data. This paper describes an implementation of a spike
detector suitable for compact, high density active micro-
electrode arrays.
Most of the neural spike information is contained within
a frequency bandwidth of 300 Hz - 15 kHz. We classify
unwanted signal/information as noise. One of the dominant
unwanted signal in spike recordings is the Local Field Po-
tential (LFP) generated due to dendritic activity and it occurs
primarily in the lower frequency spectrum (1 Hz - 300 Hz) [8],
[9]. In-vivo recordings from aplysia and macaque cortex have
shown that LFP noise is concentrated at lower frequencies
(<300 Hz) [8], [10]. Noise due to other sources such as the
electrode and the electronic circuitry also have lower power in
neural signal bandwidth [9]. Hence, neural recording systems
focus on capturing spike signals in the 300 Hz - 10 kHz range.
Main activity of the neural spikes is focused around lower
frequencies in this signal band.
The problem of spike detection has been approached using
a variety of methods (Table I). Signal amplitude and sig-
nal energy are most commonly used as the discriminating
factors between neural spikes and noise. Amplitude-based
discrimination is commonly used when the noise amplitude
is much lower than the spike amplitude [2], [11], [12]. Dual
thresholding and adaptive thresholding have also been reported
[13], [14], with reported power consumption as low as 1.8 nW
[13]. These methods require pre-processing of the signal to
remove variable DC offset, so the total number of processing
units is higher than for simple comparators.
The use of energy operators, like the Non-linear Energy
Operator (NEO), to discriminate the neural spikes from noise
is also common [15], [16], [17]. NEO has a robust performance
even at low signal to noise ratio [18], [17]. There are a number
of reported NEO implementations but it is computationally
expensive [15], [19], [20], [16]. When analyzed using non-
linear methods like Volterra series, NEO shows characteristics
similar to high pass filters [21]. This suggests that other
techniques exhibiting high-pass characteristics, such as deriva-
tives, can also be used for spike detection. Implementation of
derivative method for spike detection has also been reported
[9], [22]. Derivatives give a more robust performance than
simple thresholding in spike detection at low SNR. Although
the NEO method outperforms the derivative method at low
SNRs, derivatives are computationally cheaper than NEO. In
Fig. 1. Block Diagram of the system. Neural signals are amplified (Amp),
then passed to a differentiator (Diff) and finally to a readout (WTA). The WTA
can be connected to other similar systems to arbiter between simultaneously
generated spikes in the MEA system.

this paper, we present an implementation of spike detection

using derivatives. The computational unit for the derivative
was inspired by motion detection circuits [23], [24].
TABLE I
CMOS S PIKE D ETECTORS

Ref. Tech. Power Size mm2 Methods

[25] NA - - Thresholding Fig. 2. Complete schematic of the system. The system has an amplifier,
[14] 1.5µ 60 µW 0.094 Adaptive thresholding differentiator and a readout. Parasitic capacitors which play a dominant role
[12] 0.5µ - - Local average thresholding in determining cutoff frequencies are shown. The equivalent Miller parasitic
[11] 1.5µ 0.8 µW 0.3 Peak and trough estimator capacitors are shown in red.
[15] 0.13µ 1 µW 0.17 NEO
[19] 0.35µ 6 mW (s) 8.8×7.2 NEO
[26] 0.35µ 93 µW 1.62×1.62 Noise Shaping
[20] 0.18µ 0.78 µW 0.07 Energy operator TEO cut-off frequency of 250 Hz. The open loop gain of the
[16] 90 nm 460 µW (s) 0.075712 NEO differentiator AOL , feedback circuit Af and the closed loop
[13] 0.35µ 1.8 nW NA Double fixed threshold gain ACL of the differentiator are given below. gmn is the
transconductance of M5, and rop and ron are the output
The paper is organized as follows. Section II discusses the resistance of transistors M6 and M5.
circuit design and analysis. Section III presents circuit simu- AOL = gmn × rop  ron
lations, and section IV discusses the work and its summary.
= 51V /V
II. C IRCUIT OVERVIEW gmpSF + gmnSF
Af = 1 1
A. Description ropSF + ronSF + gmpSF + gmnSF
The block diagram of the processing circuitry is shown in = 0.965V /V
Fig. 1. The system consists of a pre-amplifier, the differentiator AOL
ACL = −
and the readout. Neural signals recorded from extracellular 1 + AOL × Af
electrodes have amplitudes on the order of 50 µV - 100 µV. = −1.02V /V
The pre-amplifier amplifies the signal by a gain of 600 V/V
(approx.) and the differentiator attenuates the low frequency Any large or sudden changes in input voltage signal cor-
noise [24]. responds to large current flow in ‘C’. This current is sourced
The complete circuit with parasitic capacitances is shown by the source followers M7 and M8. Hence, higher frequency
in Fig 2. The pre-amplifier is a differential amplifier circuit signals are transmitted and are available as current through the
(M1-M4). The differentiator circuit was inspired by a motion SF M7 and M8.
processing circuit and it consists of a capacitor C and a III. S IMULATIONS
common source amplifier (M5-M6) with feedback provided by
source followers M7 and M8. The output of the differentiator A. ROC curves
is the current flowing through the source follower circuits. The We perform spike detection on artificial data using the
amplifier is a low-pass filter with its -3 dB cut-off frequency derivative method and compare this approach with simple
selected at 2.5 kHz. The differentiator acts like a high-pass and spike detection using a thresholding operation on the raw
attenuates the lower frequency signal. The complete system waveform (comparator). The artificial data comprised additive
hence acts like a bandpass filter with a bandwidth of 250 Hz- noise and spikes. Details have been explained in [18]. Receiver
2.5 kHz. operating characteristics (ROC) curves is the probability of
true positives plotted against the probability of false negatives,
B. Small Signal Analysis and ROC curves from Matlab simulation are shown in Fig. 3.
The values of transistor size in the source follower feedback Two different noise power levels were simulated to compare
structure and amplifier have been selected to obtain the desired the performance at different SNRs.
 1

Amplified Input
0.72

Signal
0.9

(V)
0.7
0.8
0.68

Probability of True Positives

0.7 0 5 10 15 20

Capacitor current
(Differentiator)
0.6 0.5
SC (−32 dBW)

(pA)
0.5 SC (−22 dBW)
0
Deri (−22 dBW)
0.4 Deri (−32 dBW)
−0.5
0 5 10 15 20
0.3
1.484

node Vout
Voltage at
0.2 1.482

(V)
0.1 1.48

0 1.478
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms)
Probability of False Positives

Fig. 3. ROC curves showing performance of proposed circuit (derivative) and
simple thresholding without pre-treatment for spike detection [18]. Threshold
values decrease from left to right. Curves for two different power levels of
noise have been plotted -32 dBW (solid) and -22 dBW (dashed). ROC curves
for data processed using the circuit in Fig. 2 show behaviour similar to -32
dB curves.
Fig. 4. Transient simulation results for the circuit in Fig. 2. A 100 Hz sine
wave represents LFP noise, and a 60 µV triangle wave represents the spike
(topmost panel). Current in the capacitor ‘C’ is shown in the middle panel.
At the output (Vout ) the low frequency signal (sine wave) is attenuated, and
the higher frequency signal (spike) is amplified (bottom panel).

60
Neural Signal Bandwidth

In Fig. 3, the threshold values decrease from left to right. As

50
threshold values are decreased (but kept below the maximum 43 dB Amplifier Response
signal value) in each case, the probability of detection of true 40
System Response
−3 dB points: 250 Hz, 2500 Hz
positives increases. Increasing the noise power deteriorates the
performance of each detector. At high noise levels, the simple 30

Gain
dB
comparator is rendered unreliable. At lower noise power,
20
pre-processing with derivatives outperforms spike detection
using simple thresholding (comparator). We conclude that the 10 2500 Hz

derivative method helps to provide more robust spike detection

at low SNR. 0
90 Hz 250 Hz 10 kHz

−10 0 2 4 6 8
10 10 10 10 10
B. Cadence simulations Frequency
Hz

The circuit shown in Fig. 2 was simulated using Cadence

Spectre simulator 4.4.6. BSIM3 models (level 49) and 3 metal
2 poly 0.5 µm CMOS technology were used. In transient
analysis, a 60 µV triangle wave was superimposed on a 50 µV
l00 Hz sine wave and provided as input signal to the circuit.
Fig. 4 shows the results. We see that the low frequency signal
is attenuated and the triangle wave which has higher frequency
components is accentuated.
An AC analysis of the system was performed, and it was
found that the bandwidth of the circuit ranges from 300 Hz
- 10 kHz (approx.). Fig. 5 shows the results. The amplifier
attenuates noise greater than 10 kHz, and the complete system
rejects frequencies lower than 250 Hz (approx.).
To test the efficacy of design, we used raw (unfiltered)
recording neural data from the auditory cortex of ferrets [27].
Simple thresholding was done to detect the spikes in the
processed and unprocessed data. The spike detection results
were compared with the detection results from commercial
software [27]. Processing with derivatives shows lower false
detection similar to plots shown in Fig. 3. The unprocessed
and processed data with spike detection results is shown in
Fig. 6.
Fig. 5. AC response of the amplifier and the complete system (bold). The
amplifier determines the upper cut-off frequency. Overall system response
represents a bandpass characteristics allowing neural signals (250 Hz- 2.5
kHz) to pass through.
IV. D ISCUSSION
We prepared the methods for derivative processing for spike
detection in neural spike trains. We designed and simulated
a circuit for implementing spike detection using derivatives
for pre-processing. Bandpass filtering was achieved by a
differentiator and an amplifier with low-pass characteristics.
Simulations show that the neural signal band (250 Hz - 2.5
kHz) is allowed to pass and other frequencies are rejected.
Further, the upper cutoff frequency can be tuned by changing
the biasing parameters of the amplifier.
The circuit consumes a power of 300 µW. The area of
the circuit is 150 µm x 150 µm, making it suitable for
compact low power designs. However, due to its operation in
the subthreshold domain the circuit is sensitive to fabrication
mismatches.
 Raw Input Data
5
[8] K. H. Kim and S. J. Kim, “Neural spike sorting under nearly 0-db
signal-to-noise ratio using nonlinear energy operator and artificial neural-
0 network classifier,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,

Voltage
vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1406 –1411, Oct 2000.

volts
−5
[9] W. Liu, M. S. Chae, Z. Yang, and H. Kim, “Design of advanced
−10 MissedMissed
Flase
neuroscience platform,” in Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Spike Spike
Spike Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009 (EMBC 2009), Sep
−15
0.245 0.25 0.255 0.26 0.265 0.27 0.275
2009, pp. 5535 –5538.
[10] B. Pesaran, “Spectral analysis for neural signals,” in Neural Signal
Processed Output Processing: Quantitative Analysis of Neural Activity, P. Mitra, Ed.
−4
Spike Spike Spike Spike Spike SpikeSpike Spike Society for Neuroscience, 2008, pp. 1–12.
−2 [11] T. Horiuchi, T. Swindell, D. Sander, and P. Abshire, “A low-power
CMOS neural amplifier with amplitude measurements for spike sorting,”
Voltage
volts

0 in Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Circuits and

2
4
0.245 0.25 0.255 0.26 0.265 0.27
Time
(seconds)
Fig. 6. The design was tested using data from auditory cortex of ferrets
[27]. Plots shows the raw data (top) and the processed data (bottom). Results
from spike detection using thresholding have been marked. Processing with
derivatives reduces the number of missed spikes and false detections.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Prof. T.K. Horiuchi and members
of the Integrated Biomorphic Information Systems Laboratory
at UMD for technical discussions and advice. We would
also like to thank MOSIS for fabricating the chip and it
was used for teaching an undergraduate VLSI design class.
Authors also extend their gratitude to Stephen David and
Neural Systems Lab for recording raw data from ferret cortex
and also providing the results from their spike sorting software
[27].
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Harrison, P. Watkins, R. Kier, R. Lovejoy, D. Black, R. Normann,
and F. Solzbacher, “A low-power integrated circuit for a wireless 100-
electrode neural recording system,” in Digest of Technical Papers, IEEE
International Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2006 (ISSCC 2006), Feb
2006, pp. 2258 –2267.
[2] R. R. Harrison, P. T. Watkins, R. J. Kier, R. O. Lovejoy, D. J. Black,
B. Greger, and F. Solzbacher, “A low-power integrated circuit for a
wireless 100-electrode neural recording system,” IEEE Journal of Solid-
State Circuits, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 123 –133, Jan 2007.
[3] U. Frey, F. Heer, R. Pedron, S. Hafizovic, F. Greve, J. Sedivy, K.-
U. Kirstein, and A. Hierlemann, “An 11k-electrode 126-channel high-
density microelectrode array to interact with electrogenic cells,” in
Digest of Technical Papers, IEEE International Solid-State Circuits
Conference, 2007 (ISSCC 2007), Feb 2007, pp. 158 – 593.
[4] L. Berdondini, K. Imfeld, A. Maccione, M. Tedesco, S. Neukom,
M. Koudelka-Hep, and S. Martinoia, “Active pixel sensor array for high
spatio-temporal resolution electrophysiological recordings from single
cell to large scale neuronal networks,” Lab on a Chip, vol. 9, pp. 2644–
2651, 2009.
[5] K. Mathieson, S. Kachiguine, C. Adams, W. Cunningham, D. Gunning,
V. O’Shea, K. M. Smith, E. J. Chichilnisky, A. M. Litke, A. Sher,
and M. Rahman, “Large-Area Microelectrode Arrays for Recording of
Neural Signals,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 51, pp.
2027–2031, Oct. 2004.
[6] E. Smela and P. Abshire, “Cell-based sensing biological transduction of
chemical stimuli to electrical signals: Nose-on-a-chip,” 2006, USPTO
Patent Application.
[7] S. Prasad and J. Quijano, “Development of nanostructured biomedical
micro-drug testing device based on in situ cellular activity monitoring,”
Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1219 – 1229, 2006.
Systems, 2004 (ISCAS ’04), vol. 4, May 2004, pp. IV – 29–32 Vol.4.
[12] C. Rogers and J. Harris, “A low-power analog spike detector for extracel-
0.275
lular neural recordings,” in Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International
Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems, 2004 (ICECS 2004),
Dec 2004, pp. 290 – 293.
[13] S. Hiseni, C. Sawigun, W. Ngamkham, and W. Serdijn, “A compact,
nano-power CMOS action potential detector,” in IEEE Biomedical
Circuits and Systems Conference, 2009 (BioCAS 2009), Nov 2009, pp.
97 –100.
[14] R. Harrison, “A low-power integrated circuit for adaptive detection of
action potentials in noisy signals,” in Proceedings of the 25th Annual
International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and
Biology Society, 2003, vol. 4, Sept 2003, pp. 3325 – 3328 Vol.4.
[15] J. Holleman, A. Mishra, C. Diorio, and B. Otis, “A micro-power neural
spike detector and feature extractor in .13 um CMOS,” in IEEE Custom
Integrated Circuits Conference, 2008 (CICC 2008), Sept 2008, pp. 333
–336.
[16] L. Hoang, Z. Yang, and W. Liu, “VLSI architecture of NEO spike de-
tection with noise shaping filter and feature extraction using informative
samples,” in Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering
in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009 (EMBC 2009), Sept 2009, pp.
978 –981.
[17] S. Mukhopadhyay and G. Ray, “A new interpretation of nonlinear energy
operator and its efficacy in spike detection,” IEEE Transactions on
Biomedical Engineering, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 180 –187, Feb 1998.
[18] A. Sarje and P. Abshire, “Spike detection for integrated circuits: Com-
parative study,” in Proceedings, 26th Southern Biomedical Engineering
Conference, vol. 32, May 2010, pp. 282 – 285.
[19] M. S. Chae, Z. Yang, M. Yuce, L. Hoang, and W. Liu, “A 128-channel 6
mW wireless neural recording IC with spike feature extraction and UWB
transmitter,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 312 –321, Aug 2009.
[20] B. Gosselin and M. Sawan, “An ultra low-power CMOS automatic
action potential detector,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and
Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 346 –353, Aug 2009.
[21] E. Kvedalen, “Signal processing using the Teager energy operator and
other nonlinear operators,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo, 2003.
[22] Z. Yang, Q. Zhao, and W. Liu, “Improving spike separation using
waveform derivatives,” Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 6, no. 4,
p. 046006, 2009.
[23] T. Delbruck, “Investigations of analog VLSI visual transduction and mo-
tion processing,” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology,
1993.
[24] A. Stocker, “Compact integrated transconductance amplifier circuit for
temporal differentiation,” in Proceedings of the 2003 International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2003 (ISCAS ’03), vol. 1, May
2003, pp. I–201 – I–204 vol.1.
[25] K. S. Guillory and R. A. Normann, “A 100-channel system for real
time detection and storage of extracellular spike waveforms,” Journal of
Neuroscience Methods, vol. 91, no. 1-2, pp. 21 – 29, 1999.
[26] Z. Yang, Q. Zhao, and W. Liu, “Spike feature extraction using informa-
tive samples,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
21, D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou, Eds., 2009,
pp. 1865–1872.
[27] S. David, N. Mesgrarni, J. Fritz, and S. Shamma, “Rapid synaptic
depression explains nonlinear modulation of spectro-temporal tuning in
primary auditory cortex by natural stimuli,” Neuroscience, The Journal
of, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 3374 –3386, Mar. 2009.