OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy relies on both precise neurosurgical targeting and systematic optimization of stimulation settings to achieve beneficial clinical outcomes. One recent advance to improve targeting is the development of DBS arrays (DBSAs) with electrodes segmented both along and around the DBS lead. However, increasing the number of independent electrodes creates the logistical challenge of optimizing stimulation parameters efficiently. APPROACH: Solving such complex problems with multiple solutions and objectives is well known to occur in biology, in which complex collective behaviors emerge out of swarms of individual organisms engaged in learning through social interactions. Here, we developed a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to program DBSAs using a swarm of individual particles representing electrode configurations and stimulation amplitudes. Using a finite element model of motor thalamic DBS, we demonstrate how the PSO algorithm can efficiently optimize a multi-objective function that maximizes predictions of axonal activation in regions of interest (ROI, cerebellar-receiving area of motor thalamus), minimizes predictions of axonal activation in regions of avoidance (ROA, somatosensory thalamus), and minimizes power consumption. MAIN RESULTS: The algorithm solved the multi-objective problem by producing a Pareto front. ROI and ROA activation predictions were consistent across swarms (<1% median discrepancy in axon activation). The algorithm was able to accommodate for (1) lead displacement (1 mm) with relatively small ROI (⩽9.2%) and ROA (⩽1%) activation changes, irrespective of shift direction; (2) reduction in maximum per-electrode current (by 50% and 80%) with ROI activation decreasing by 5.6% and 16%, respectively; and (3) disabling electrodes (n = 3 and 12) with ROI activation reduction by 1.8% and 14%, respectively. Additionally, comparison between PSO predictions and multi-compartment axon model simulations showed discrepancies of <1% between approaches. SIGNIFICANCE: The PSO algorithm provides a computationally efficient way to program DBS systems especially those with higher electrode counts.
OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy relies on both precise neurosurgical targeting and systematic optimization of stimulation settings to achieve beneficial clinical outcomes. One recent advance to improve targeting is the development of DBS arrays (DBSAs) with electrodes segmented both along and around the DBS lead. However, increasing the number of independent electrodes creates the logistical challenge of optimizing stimulation parameters efficiently. APPROACH: Solving such complex problems with multiple solutions and objectives is well known to occur in biology, in which complex collective behaviors emerge out of swarms of individual organisms engaged in learning through social interactions. Here, we developed a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to program DBSAs using a swarm of individual particles representing electrode configurations and stimulation amplitudes. Using a finite element model of motor thalamic DBS, we demonstrate how the PSO algorithm can efficiently optimize a multi-objective function that maximizes predictions of axonal activation in regions of interest (ROI, cerebellar-receiving area of motor thalamus), minimizes predictions of axonal activation in regions of avoidance (ROA, somatosensory thalamus), and minimizes power consumption. MAIN RESULTS: The algorithm solved the multi-objective problem by producing a Pareto front. ROI and ROA activation predictions were consistent across swarms (<1% median discrepancy in axon activation). The algorithm was able to accommodate for (1) lead displacement (1 mm) with relatively small ROI (⩽9.2%) and ROA (⩽1%) activation changes, irrespective of shift direction; (2) reduction in maximum per-electrode current (by 50% and 80%) with ROI activation decreasing by 5.6% and 16%, respectively; and (3) disabling electrodes (n = 3 and 12) with ROI activation reduction by 1.8% and 14%, respectively. Additionally, comparison between PSO predictions and multi-compartment axon model simulations showed discrepancies of <1% between approaches. SIGNIFICANCE: The PSO algorithm provides a computationally efficient way to program DBS systems especially those with higher electrode counts.
Authors: H C F Martens; E Toader; M M J Decré; D J Anderson; R Vetter; D R Kipke; Kenneth B Baker; Matthew D Johnson; Jerrold L Vitek Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Kees J van Dijk; Rens Verhagen; Ashutosh Chaturvedi; Cameron C McIntyre; Lo J Bour; Ciska Heida; Peter H Veltink Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Svjetlana Miocinovic; Martin Parent; Christopher R Butson; Philip J Hahn; Gary S Russo; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: M Fiorella Contarino; Lo J Bour; Rens Verhagen; Marcel A J Lourens; Rob M A de Bie; Pepijn van den Munckhof; P R Schuurman Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Svjetlana Miocinovic; Scott F Lempka; Gary S Russo; Christopher B Maks; Christopher R Butson; Ken E Sakaie; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Matthew D Johnson; Svjetlana Miocinovic; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 3.708
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: Johannes Vorwerk; Andrea A Brock; Daria N Anderson; John D Rolston; Christopher R Butson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Kara A Johnson; Gordon Duffley; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Jill L Ostrem; Marie-Laure Welter; Juan Carlos Baldermann; Jens Kuhn; Daniel Huys; Veerle Visser-Vandewalle; Thomas Foltynie; Ludvic Zrinzo; Marwan Hariz; Albert F G Leentjens; Alon Y Mogilner; Michael H Pourfar; Leonardo Almeida; Aysegul Gunduz; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun; Christopher R Butson Journal: Brain Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Kenneth H Louie; Matthew N Petrucci; Logan L Grado; Chiahao Lu; Paul J Tuite; Andrew G Lamperski; Colum D MacKinnon; Scott E Cooper; Theoden I Netoff Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Alan D Dorval; John D Rolston; Stefan M Pulst; Collin J Anderson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora; James J Giordano; Aysegul Gunduz; Peter Brown; Justin C Sanchez; Kelly D Foote; Leonardo Almeida; Philip A Starr; Helen M Bronte-Stewart; Wei Hu; Cameron McIntyre; Wayne Goodman; Doe Kumsa; Warren M Grill; Harrison C Walker; Matthew D Johnson; Jerrold L Vitek; David Greene; Daniel S Rizzuto; Dong Song; Theodore W Berger; Robert E Hampson; Sam A Deadwyler; Leigh R Hochberg; Nicholas D Schiff; Paul Stypulkowski; Greg Worrell; Vineet Tiruvadi; Helen S Mayberg; Joohi Jimenez-Shahed; Pranav Nanda; Sameer A Sheth; Robert E Gross; Scott F Lempka; Luming Li; Wissam Deeb; Michael S Okun Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 4.677