M Sohail Noor1, Cameron C McIntyre2. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: ccm4@case.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Two major advances in clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS) technology have been the introduction of local field potential (LFP) recording capabilities, and the deployment of directional DBS electrodes. However, these two technologies are not operationally integrated within current clinical DBS devices. Therefore, we evaluated the theoretical advantages of using directional DBS electrodes for LFP recordings, with a focus on measuring beta-band activity in the subthalamic nucleus (STN). METHODS: We used a computational model of human STN neural activity to simulate LFP recordings. The model consisted of 235,280 anatomically and electrically detailed STN neurons surrounding the DBS electrode, which was previously optimized to mimic beta-band synchrony in the dorsolateral STN. We then used that model system to compare LFP recordings from cylindrical and directional DBS contacts, and evaluate how the selection of different contacts for bipolar recording affected the LFP measurements. RESULTS: The model predicted two advantages of directional DBS electrodes over cylindrical DBS electrodes for STN LFP recording. First, recording from directional contacts could provide additional insight on the location of a synchronous volume of neurons within the STN. Second, directional contacts could detect a smaller volume of synchronous neurons than cylindrical contacts, which our simulations predicted to be a ~0.5 mm minimum radius. CONCLUSIONS: STN LFP recordings from 8-contact directional DBS electrodes (28 possible bipolar pairs) can provide more information than 4-contact cylindrical DBS electrodes (6 possible bipolar pairs), but they also introduce additional complexity in analyzing the signals. SIGNIFICANCE: Integration of directional electrodes with DBS systems that are capable of LFP recordings could improve localization of targeted volumes of synchronous neurons in PD patients.
OBJECTIVE: Two major advances in clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS) technology have been the introduction of local field potential (LFP) recording capabilities, and the deployment of directional DBS electrodes. However, these two technologies are not operationally integrated within current clinical DBS devices. Therefore, we evaluated the theoretical advantages of using directional DBS electrodes for LFP recordings, with a focus on measuring beta-band activity in the subthalamic nucleus (STN). METHODS: We used a computational model of human STN neural activity to simulate LFP recordings. The model consisted of 235,280 anatomically and electrically detailed STN neurons surrounding the DBS electrode, which was previously optimized to mimic beta-band synchrony in the dorsolateral STN. We then used that model system to compare LFP recordings from cylindrical and directional DBS contacts, and evaluate how the selection of different contacts for bipolar recording affected the LFP measurements. RESULTS: The model predicted two advantages of directional DBS electrodes over cylindrical DBS electrodes for STN LFP recording. First, recording from directional contacts could provide additional insight on the location of a synchronous volume of neurons within the STN. Second, directional contacts could detect a smaller volume of synchronous neurons than cylindrical contacts, which our simulations predicted to be a ~0.5 mm minimum radius. CONCLUSIONS: STN LFP recordings from 8-contact directional DBS electrodes (28 possible bipolar pairs) can provide more information than 4-contact cylindrical DBS electrodes (6 possible bipolar pairs), but they also introduce additional complexity in analyzing the signals. SIGNIFICANCE: Integration of directional electrodes with DBS systems that are capable of LFP recordings could improve localization of targeted volumes of synchronous neurons in PD patients.
Authors: Simeng Zhang; Allison T Connolly; Lauren R Madden; Jerrold L Vitek; Matthew D Johnson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-04-13 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: 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: L J Bour; M A J Lourens; R Verhagen; R M A de Bie; P van den Munckhof; P R Schuurman; M F Contarino Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Scott Stanslaski; Jeffrey Herron; Tom Chouinard; Duane Bourget; Ben Isaacson; Vaclav Kremen; Enrico Opri; William Drew; Benjamin H Brinkmann; Aysegul Gunduz; Tom Adamski; Gregory A Worrell; Timothy Denison Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 3.833
Authors: Andrea A Kühn; Alexander Tsui; Tipu Aziz; Nicola Ray; Christof Brücke; Andreas Kupsch; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Peter Brown Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Simon Little; Martijn Beudel; Ludvic Zrinzo; Thomas Foltynie; Patricia Limousin; Marwan Hariz; Spencer Neal; Binith Cheeran; Hayriye Cagnan; James Gratwicke; Tipu Z Aziz; Alex Pogosyan; Peter Brown Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Anders Christian Meidahl; Gerd Tinkhauser; Damian Marc Herz; Hayriye Cagnan; Jean Debarros; Peter Brown Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 10.338