Scott F Lempka1, Bryan Howell2, Kabilar Gunalan2, Andre G Machado3, Cameron C McIntyre4. 1. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Biointerfaces Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: lempka@umich.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the circuit elements required to theoretically describe the stimulus waveforms generated by an implantable pulse generator (IPG) during clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS: We experimentally interrogated the Medtronic Activa PC DBS IPG and defined an equivalent circuit model that accurately captured the output of the IPG. We then compared the detailed circuit model of the clinical stimulus waveforms to simplified representations commonly used in computational models of DBS. We quantified the errors associated with these simplifications using theoretical activation thresholds of myelinated axons in response to DBS. RESULTS: We found that the detailed IPG model generated substantial differences in activation thresholds compared to simplified models. These differences were largest for bipolar stimulation with long pulse widths. Average errors were ∼3 to 24% for voltage-controlled stimulation and ∼2 to 11% for current-controlled stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the importance of including basic circuit elements (e.g. blocking capacitors, lead wire resistance, electrode capacitance) in model analysis of DBS. SIGNIFICANCE: Computational models of DBS are now commonly used in academic research, industrial technology development, and in the selection of clinical stimulation parameters. Incorporating a realistic representation of the IPG output is necessary to improve the accuracy and utility of these clinical and scientific tools.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the circuit elements required to theoretically describe the stimulus waveforms generated by an implantable pulse generator (IPG) during clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS: We experimentally interrogated the Medtronic Activa PC DBS IPG and defined an equivalent circuit model that accurately captured the output of the IPG. We then compared the detailed circuit model of the clinical stimulus waveforms to simplified representations commonly used in computational models of DBS. We quantified the errors associated with these simplifications using theoretical activation thresholds of myelinated axons in response to DBS. RESULTS: We found that the detailed IPG model generated substantial differences in activation thresholds compared to simplified models. These differences were largest for bipolar stimulation with long pulse widths. Average errors were ∼3 to 24% for voltage-controlled stimulation and ∼2 to 11% for current-controlled stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the importance of including basic circuit elements (e.g. blocking capacitors, lead wire resistance, electrode capacitance) in model analysis of DBS. SIGNIFICANCE: Computational models of DBS are now commonly used in academic research, industrial technology development, and in the selection of clinical stimulation parameters. Incorporating a realistic representation of the IPG output is necessary to improve the accuracy and utility of these clinical and scientific tools.
Authors: C Haberler; F Alesch; P R Mazal; P Pilz; K Jellinger; M M Pinter; J A Hainfellner; H Budka Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Svjetlana Miocinovic; Matthew D Johnson; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Donald A Malone; Bo Hu; Kenneth B Baker; Alexandria Wyant; John G Ozinga; Ela B Plow; Mayur Pandya; Cynthia S Kubu; Paul J Ford; Andre G Machado Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 10.422
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: B D Greenberg; L A Gabriels; D A Malone; A R Rezai; G M Friehs; M S Okun; N A Shapira; K D Foote; P R Cosyns; C S Kubu; P F Malloy; S P Salloway; J E Giftakis; M T Rise; A G Machado; K B Baker; P H Stypulkowski; W K Goodman; S A Rasmussen; B J Nuttin Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Collin J Anderson; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Stefan M Pulst; Christopher R Butson; Alan D Dorval Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 8.955
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: Bryan Howell; Faical Isbaine; Jon T Willie; Enrico Opri; Robert E Gross; Coralie De Hemptinne; Philip A Starr; Cameron C McIntyre; Svjetlana Miocinovic Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Julius Zimmermann; Kai Budde; Nils Arbeiter; Francia Molina; Alexander Storch; Adelinde M Uhrmacher; Ursula van Rienen Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2021-12-08
Authors: Jean Debarros; Lea Gaignon; Shenghong He; Alek Pogosyan; Moaad Benjaber; Timothy Denison; Peter Brown; Huiling Tan Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2020-07