Bryan Howell1,2, Kabilar Gunalan1, Cameron C McIntyre1. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Detailed biophysical modeling of deep brain stimulation (DBS) provides a theoretical approach to quantify the cellular response to the applied electric field. However, the most accurate models for performing such analyses, patient-specific field-cable (FC) pathway-activation models (PAMs), are so technically demanding to implement that their use in clinical research is greatly limited. Predictive algorithms can simplify PAM calculations, but they generally fail to reproduce the output of FC models when evaluated over a wide range of clinically relevant stimulation parameters. Therefore, we set out to develop a novel driving-force (DF) predictive algorithm (DF-Howell), customized to the study of DBS, which can better match FC results. METHODS: We developed the DF-Howell algorithm and compared its predictions to FC PAM results, as well as to the DF-Peterson algorithm, which is currently the most accurate and generalizable DF-based method. Comparison of the various methods was quantified within the context of subthalamic DBS using activation thresholds of axons representing the internal capsule, hyperdirect pathway, and cerebellothalamic tract for various combinations of fiber diameters, stimulus pulse widths, and electrode configurations. RESULTS: The DF-Howell predictor estimated activation of the three axonal pathways with less than a 6.2% mean error with respect to the FC PAM for all 21 cases tested. In 15 of the 21 cases, DF-Howell outperformed DF-Peterson in estimating pathway activation, reducing mean-errors up to 22.5%. CONCLUSIONS: DF-Howell represents an accurate predictor for estimating axonal pathway activation in patient-specific DBS models, but errors still exist relative to FC PAM calculations. Nonetheless, the tractability of DF algorithms helps to reduce the technical barriers for performing accurate biophysical modeling in clinical DBS research studies.
OBJECTIVE: Detailed biophysical modeling of deep brain stimulation (DBS) provides a theoretical approach to quantify the cellular response to the applied electric field. However, the most accurate models for performing such analyses, patient-specific field-cable (FC) pathway-activation models (PAMs), are so technically demanding to implement that their use in clinical research is greatly limited. Predictive algorithms can simplify PAM calculations, but they generally fail to reproduce the output of FC models when evaluated over a wide range of clinically relevant stimulation parameters. Therefore, we set out to develop a novel driving-force (DF) predictive algorithm (DF-Howell), customized to the study of DBS, which can better match FC results. METHODS: We developed the DF-Howell algorithm and compared its predictions to FC PAM results, as well as to the DF-Peterson algorithm, which is currently the most accurate and generalizable DF-based method. Comparison of the various methods was quantified within the context of subthalamic DBS using activation thresholds of axons representing the internal capsule, hyperdirect pathway, and cerebellothalamic tract for various combinations of fiber diameters, stimulus pulse widths, and electrode configurations. RESULTS: The DF-Howell predictor estimated activation of the three axonal pathways with less than a 6.2% mean error with respect to the FC PAM for all 21 cases tested. In 15 of the 21 cases, DF-Howell outperformed DF-Peterson in estimating pathway activation, reducing mean-errors up to 22.5%. CONCLUSIONS: DF-Howell represents an accurate predictor for estimating axonal pathway activation in patient-specific DBS models, but errors still exist relative to FC PAM calculations. Nonetheless, the tractability of DF algorithms helps to reduce the technical barriers for performing accurate biophysical modeling in clinical DBS research studies.
Authors: G Tommasi; P Krack; V Fraix; J-F Le Bas; S Chabardes; A-L Benabid; P Pollak Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Hongbae Jeong; Georgios Ntolkeras; Michel Alhilani; Seyed Reza Atefi; Lilla Zöllei; Kyoko Fujimoto; Ali Pourvaziri; Michael H Lev; P Ellen Grant; Giorgio Bonmassar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simón Oxenford; Jan Roediger; Clemens Neudorfer; Luka Milosevic; Christopher Güttler; Philipp Spindler; Peter Vajkoczy; Wolf-Julian Neumann; Andrea Kühn; Andreas Horn Journal: Elife Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 8.713
Authors: Mathias Davids; Bastien Guérin; Valerie Klein; Martin Schmelz; Lothar R Schad; Lawrence L Wald Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 5.379
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: T A Khoa Nguyen; Milan Djilas; Andreas Nowacki; André Mercanzini; Michael Schüpbach; Philipp Renaud; Claudio Pollo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gordon Duffley; Daria Nesterovich Anderson; Johannes Vorwerk; Alan D Dorval; Christopher R Butson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Sonia Pujol; Ryan P Cabeen; Jérôme Yelnik; Chantal François; Sara Fernandez Vidal; Carine Karachi; Eric Bardinet; G Rees Cosgrove; Ron Kikinis Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Angela M Noecker; Anneke M Frankemolle-Gilbert; Bryan Howell; Mikkel V Petersen; Sinem Balta Beylergil; Aasef G Shaikh; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2021-01-03