Bryan Howell1, Cameron C McIntyre. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an adjunctive therapy that is effective in treating movement disorders and shows promise for treating psychiatric disorders. Computational models of DBS have begun to be utilized as tools to optimize the therapy. Despite advancements in the anatomical accuracy of these models, there is still uncertainty as to what level of electrical complexity is adequate for modeling the electric field in the brain and the subsequent neural response to the stimulation. APPROACH: We used magnetic resonance images to create an image-based computational model of subthalamic DBS. The complexity of the volume conductor model was increased by incrementally including heterogeneity, anisotropy, and dielectric dispersion in the electrical properties of the brain. We quantified changes in the load of the electrode, the electric potential distribution, and stimulation thresholds of descending corticofugal (DCF) axon models. MAIN RESULTS: Incorporation of heterogeneity altered the electric potentials and subsequent stimulation thresholds, but to a lesser degree than incorporation of anisotropy. Additionally, the results were sensitive to the choice of method for defining anisotropy, with stimulation thresholds of DCF axons changing by as much as 190%. Typical approaches for defining anisotropy underestimate the expected load of the stimulation electrode, which led to underestimation of the extent of stimulation. More accurate predictions of the electrode load were achieved with alternative approaches for defining anisotropy. The effects of dielectric dispersion were small compared to the effects of heterogeneity and anisotropy. SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this study help delineate the level of detail that is required to accurately model electric fields generated by DBS electrodes.
OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an adjunctive therapy that is effective in treating movement disorders and shows promise for treating psychiatric disorders. Computational models of DBS have begun to be utilized as tools to optimize the therapy. Despite advancements in the anatomical accuracy of these models, there is still uncertainty as to what level of electrical complexity is adequate for modeling the electric field in the brain and the subsequent neural response to the stimulation. APPROACH: We used magnetic resonance images to create an image-based computational model of subthalamic DBS. The complexity of the volume conductor model was increased by incrementally including heterogeneity, anisotropy, and dielectric dispersion in the electrical properties of the brain. We quantified changes in the load of the electrode, the electric potential distribution, and stimulation thresholds of descending corticofugal (DCF) axon models. MAIN RESULTS: Incorporation of heterogeneity altered the electric potentials and subsequent stimulation thresholds, but to a lesser degree than incorporation of anisotropy. Additionally, the results were sensitive to the choice of method for defining anisotropy, with stimulation thresholds of DCF axons changing by as much as 190%. Typical approaches for defining anisotropy underestimate the expected load of the stimulation electrode, which led to underestimation of the extent of stimulation. More accurate predictions of the electrode load were achieved with alternative approaches for defining anisotropy. The effects of dielectric dispersion were small compared to the effects of heterogeneity and anisotropy. SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this study help delineate the level of detail that is required to accurately model electric fields generated by DBS electrodes.
Authors: Birte U Forstmann; Max C Keuken; Sara Jahfari; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Jane Neumann; Andreas Schäfer; Alfred Anwander; Robert Turner Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ashutosh Chaturvedi; Christopher R Butson; Scott F Lempka; Scott E Cooper; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Edgar Peña; Simeng Zhang; Remi Patriat; Joshua E Aman; Jerrold L Vitek; Noam Harel; Matthew D Johnson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Nicholas Maling; Scott F Lempka; Zack Blumenfeld; Helen Bronte-Stewart; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Bryan Howell; Ki Sueng Choi; Kabilar Gunalan; Justin Rajendra; Helen S Mayberg; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Bryan Howell; Kabilar Gunalan; Andre G Machado; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Andreas Horn; Martin Reich; Johannes Vorwerk; Ningfei Li; Gregor Wenzel; Qianqian Fang; Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch; Robert Nickl; Andreas Kupsch; Jens Volkmann; Andrea A Kühn; Michael D Fox Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 10.422