Cristian Donos1, Ioana Mîndruţă2, Jean Ciurea3, Mihai Dragos Mălîia4, Andrei Barborica5. 1. Physics Department, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania. 2. Neurology Department, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania; Neurology Department, University Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. 3. Neurosurgery Department, Bagdasar-Arseni Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. 4. Neurology Department, University Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. 5. Physics Department, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania; FHC Inc., Bowdoin, ME, USA. Electronic address: andrei.barborica@fizica.unibuc.ro.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intracranial direct electrical stimulation (iDES) uses different parameters for mapping the epileptogenic and functional areas in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. We aim at finding the common factor driving the electrographic responses to various iDES protocols reported in the literature. METHODS: We recorded early responses to single-pulse iDES in 11 subjects undergoing stereoelectroencephalographic presurgical evaluation. We systematically explored the role of several pulse parameters in evoking responses: monophasic versus biphasic pulses, current intensity, and pulse duration. We performed a correlation and regression analysis between responses to different protocols by amplitude, duration, and charge per phase. RESULTS: Regression analysis revealed that the responses were similar for the same charge per phase, regardless of their pulse duration and amplitude. Over eighty percent (82.8%) of the responses to variable pulse duration biphasic stimulation and between 58.6% and 81.9% of the responses to monophasic stimulation, depending on pulse polarity, were correlated to the responses evoked by the variable amplitude biphasic protocol, when expressing stimulus strength in terms of charge per phase. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the combination of different stimulation currents, it is the underlying charge per phase parameter that determines the magnitude of the responses to single-pulse electrical stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results provide a unifying method for comparing iDES protocols.
OBJECTIVES: Intracranial direct electrical stimulation (iDES) uses different parameters for mapping the epileptogenic and functional areas in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. We aim at finding the common factor driving the electrographic responses to various iDES protocols reported in the literature. METHODS: We recorded early responses to single-pulse iDES in 11 subjects undergoing stereoelectroencephalographic presurgical evaluation. We systematically explored the role of several pulse parameters in evoking responses: monophasic versus biphasic pulses, current intensity, and pulse duration. We performed a correlation and regression analysis between responses to different protocols by amplitude, duration, and charge per phase. RESULTS: Regression analysis revealed that the responses were similar for the same charge per phase, regardless of their pulse duration and amplitude. Over eighty percent (82.8%) of the responses to variable pulse duration biphasic stimulation and between 58.6% and 81.9% of the responses to monophasic stimulation, depending on pulse polarity, were correlated to the responses evoked by the variable amplitude biphasic protocol, when expressing stimulus strength in terms of charge per phase. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the combination of different stimulation currents, it is the underlying charge per phase parameter that determines the magnitude of the responses to single-pulse electrical stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results provide a unifying method for comparing iDES protocols.
Authors: Bornali Kundu; Tyler S Davis; Brian Philip; Elliot H Smith; Amir Arain; Angela Peters; Blake Newman; Christopher R Butson; John D Rolston Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Ishita Basu; Madeline M Robertson; Britni Crocker; Noam Peled; Kara Farnes; Deborah I Vallejo-Lopez; Helen Deng; Matthew Thombs; Clarissa Martinez-Rubio; Jennifer J Cheng; Eric McDonald; Darin D Dougherty; Emad N Eskandar; Alik S Widge; Angelique C Paulk; Sydney S Cash Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Angelique C Paulk; Rina Zelmann; Britni Crocker; Alik S Widge; Darin D Dougherty; Emad N Eskandar; Daniel S Weisholtz; R Mark Richardson; G Rees Cosgrove; Ziv M Williams; Sydney S Cash Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Lena Trebaul; Pierre Deman; Viateur Tuyisenge; Maciej Jedynak; Etienne Hugues; David Rudrauf; Manik Bhattacharjee; François Tadel; Blandine Chanteloup-Foret; Carole Saubat; Gina Catalina Reyes Mejia; Claude Adam; Anca Nica; Martin Pail; François Dubeau; Sylvain Rheims; Agnès Trébuchon; Haixiang Wang; Sinclair Liu; Thomas Blauwblomme; Mercedes Garcés; Luca De Palma; Antonio Valentin; Eeva-Liisa Metsähonkala; Ana Maria Petrescu; Elizabeth Landré; William Szurhaj; Edouard Hirsch; Luc Valton; Rodrigo Rocamora; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Ioana Mindruta; Stefano Francione; Louis Maillard; Delphine Taussig; Philippe Kahane; Olivier David Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Jurgen Hebbink; Dorien van Blooijs; Geertjan Huiskamp; Frans S S Leijten; Stephan A van Gils; Hil G E Meijer Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 3.020