Literature DB >> 31585723

Using EMG to deliver lumbar dynamic electrical stimulation to facilitate cortico-spinal excitability.

Giuliano Taccola1, Parag Gad2, Stanislav Culaclii3, Ronaldo M Ichiyama4, Wentai Liu5, V Reggie Edgerton6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Potentiation of synaptic activity in spinal networks is reflected in the magnitude of modulation of motor responses evoked by spinal and cortical input. After spinal cord injury, motor evoked responses can be facilitated by pairing cortical and peripheral nerve stimuli.
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate synaptic potentiation of cortico-spinal input with epidural electrical stimulation, we designed a novel neuromodulation method called dynamic stimulation (DS), using patterns derived from hind limb EMG signal during stepping.
METHODS: DS was applied dorsally to the lumbar enlargement through a high-density epidural array composed of independent platinum-based micro-electrodes.
RESULTS: In fully anesthetized intact adult rats, at the interface array/spinal cord, the temporal and spatial features of DS neuromodulation affected the entire lumbosacral network, particularly the most rostral and caudal segments covered by the array. DS induced a transient (at least 1 min) increase in spinal cord excitability and, compared to tonic stimulation, generated a more robust potentiation of the motor output evoked by single pulses applied to the spinal cord. When sub-threshold pulses were selectively applied to a cortical motor area, EMG responses from the contralateral leg were facilitated by the delivery of DS to the lumbosacral cord. Finally, based on motor-evoked responses, DS was linked to a greater amplitude of motor output shortly after a calibrated spinal cord contusion.
CONCLUSION: Compared to traditional tonic waveforms, DS amplifies both spinal and cortico-spinal input aimed at spinal networks, thus significantly increasing the potential and accelerating the rate of functional recovery after a severe spinal lesion.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Asynchronous noisy stimulation; Cortico-spinal input; Epidural interface; Multi-electrode array; Neuromodulation; Spinal reflexes

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31585723     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  6 in total

1.  Complications of epidural spinal stimulation: lessons from the past and alternatives for the future.

Authors:  Giuliano Taccola; Sean Barber; Phillip J Horner; Humberto A Cerrel Bazo; Dimitry Sayenko
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.772

Review 2.  Combined neuromodulatory approaches in the central nervous system for treatment of spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Brian R Noga; James D Guest
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 5.710

3.  An epidural stimulating interface unveils the intrinsic modulation of electrically motor evoked potentials in behaving rats.

Authors:  Giuliano Taccola; Stanislav Culaclii; Hui Zhong; Parag Gad; Wentai Liu; V Reggie Edgerton
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation and motor responses in individuals with spinal cord injury: A methodological review.

Authors:  Clare Taylor; Conor McHugh; David Mockler; Conor Minogue; Richard B Reilly; Neil Fleming
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Cerebellar glutamatergic system impacts spontaneous motor recovery by regulating Gria1 expression.

Authors:  Pallavi Asthana; Gajendra Kumar; Lukasz M Milanowski; Ngan Pan Bennett Au; Siu Chung Chan; Jianpan Huang; Hemin Feng; Kin Ming Kwan; Jufang He; Kannie Wai Yan Chan; Zbigniew K Wszolek; Chi Him Eddie Ma
Journal:  NPJ Regen Med       Date:  2022-09-05

Review 6.  Electrical epidural stimulation of the cervical spinal cord: implications for spinal respiratory neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Ian G Malone; Rachel L Nosacka; Marissa A Nash; Kevin J Otto; Erica A Dale
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.974

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.