Kenneth H Louie1, Matthew N Petrucci2, Logan L Grado3, Chiahao Lu2, Paul J Tuite2, Andrew G Lamperski4, Colum D MacKinnon2, Scott E Cooper2, Theoden I Netoff3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 312 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, US. kenneth.louie@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, 516 Delaware St. SE, 55455, Minneapoli, MN, US. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 312 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, US. 4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, 200 Union St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, US.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment option for Parkinson's disease patients when medication does not sufficiently manage their symptoms. DBS can be a highly effect therapy, but only after a time-consuming trial-and-error stimulation parameter adjustment process that is susceptible to clinician bias. This trial-and-error process will be further prolonged with the introduction of segmented electrodes that are now commercially available. New approaches to optimizing a patient's stimulation parameters, that can also handle the increasing complexity of new electrode and stimulator designs, is needed. METHODS: To improve DBS parameter programming, we explored two semi-automated optimization approaches: a Bayesian optimization (BayesOpt) algorithm to efficiently determine a patient's optimal stimulation parameter for minimizing rigidity, and a probit Gaussian process (pGP) to assess patient's preference. Quantified rigidity measurements were obtained using a robotic manipulandum in two participants over two visits. Rigidity was measured, in 5Hz increments, between 10-185Hz (total 30-36 frequencies) on the first visit and at eight BayesOpt algorithm-selected frequencies on the second visit. The participant was also asked their preference between the current and previous stimulation frequency. First, we compared the optimal frequency between visits with the participant's preferred frequency. Next, we evaluated the efficiency of the BayesOpt algorithm, comparing it to random and equal interval selection of frequency. RESULTS: The BayesOpt algorithm estimated the optimal frequency to be the highest tolerable frequency, matching the optimal frequency found during the first visit. However, the participants' pGP models indicate a preference at frequencies between 70-110 Hz. Here the stimulation frequency is lowest that achieves nearly maximal suppression of rigidity. BayesOpt was efficient, estimating the rigidity response curve to stimulation that was almost indistinguishable when compared to the longer brute force method. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility to use BayesOpt for determining the optimal frequency, while pGP patient's preferences include more difficult to measure outcomes. Both novel approaches can shorten DBS programming and can be expanded to include multiple symptoms and parameters.
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment option for Parkinson's diseasepatients when medication does not sufficiently manage their symptoms. DBS can be a highly effect therapy, but only after a time-consuming trial-and-error stimulation parameter adjustment process that is susceptible to clinician bias. This trial-and-error process will be further prolonged with the introduction of segmented electrodes that are now commercially available. New approaches to optimizing a patient's stimulation parameters, that can also handle the increasing complexity of new electrode and stimulator designs, is needed. METHODS: To improve DBS parameter programming, we explored two semi-automated optimization approaches: a Bayesian optimization (BayesOpt) algorithm to efficiently determine a patient's optimal stimulation parameter for minimizing rigidity, and a probit Gaussian process (pGP) to assess patient's preference. Quantified rigidity measurements were obtained using a robotic manipulandum in two participants over two visits. Rigidity was measured, in 5Hz increments, between 10-185Hz (total 30-36 frequencies) on the first visit and at eight BayesOpt algorithm-selected frequencies on the second visit. The participant was also asked their preference between the current and previous stimulation frequency. First, we compared the optimal frequency between visits with the participant's preferred frequency. Next, we evaluated the efficiency of the BayesOpt algorithm, comparing it to random and equal interval selection of frequency. RESULTS: The BayesOpt algorithm estimated the optimal frequency to be the highest tolerable frequency, matching the optimal frequency found during the first visit. However, the participants' pGP models indicate a preference at frequencies between 70-110 Hz. Here the stimulation frequency is lowest that achieves nearly maximal suppression of rigidity. BayesOpt was efficient, estimating the rigidity response curve to stimulation that was almost indistinguishable when compared to the longer brute force method. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility to use BayesOpt for determining the optimal frequency, while pGP patient's preferences include more difficult to measure outcomes. Both novel approaches can shorten DBS programming and can be expanded to include multiple symptoms and parameters.
Authors: Günther Deuschl; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Paul Krack; Jens Volkmann; Helmut Schäfer; Kai Bötzel; Christine Daniels; Angela Deutschländer; Ulrich Dillmann; Wilhelm Eisner; Doreen Gruber; Wolfgang Hamel; Jan Herzog; Rüdiger Hilker; Stephan Klebe; Manja Kloss; Jan Koy; Martin Krause; Andreas Kupsch; Delia Lorenz; Stefan Lorenzl; H Maximilian Mehdorn; Jean Richard Moringlane; Wolfgang Oertel; Marcus O Pinsker; Heinz Reichmann; Alexander Reuss; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Alfons Schnitzler; Ulrich Steude; Volker Sturm; Lars Timmermann; Volker Tronnier; Thomas Trottenberg; Lars Wojtecki; Elisabeth Wolf; Werner Poewe; Jürgen Voges Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elena Moro; Andres M Lozano; Pierre Pollak; Yves Agid; Stig Rehncrona; Jens Volkmann; Jaime Kulisevsky; Jose A Obeso; Alberto Albanese; Marwan I Hariz; Niall P Quinn; Jans D Speelman; Alim L Benabid; Valerie Fraix; Alexandre Mendes; Marie-Laure Welter; Jean-Luc Houeto; Philippe Cornu; Didier Dormont; Annalena L Tornqvist; Ron Ekberg; Alfons Schnitzler; Lars Timmermann; Lars Wojtecki; Andres Gironell; Maria C Rodriguez-Oroz; Jorge Guridi; Anna R Bentivoglio; Maria F Contarino; Luigi Romito; Massimo Scerrati; Marc Janssens; Anthony E Lang Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: M C Rodriguez-Oroz; J A Obeso; A E Lang; J-L Houeto; P Pollak; S Rehncrona; J Kulisevsky; A Albanese; J Volkmann; M I Hariz; N P Quinn; J D Speelman; J Guridi; I Zamarbide; A Gironell; J Molet; B Pascual-Sedano; B Pidoux; A M Bonnet; Y Agid; J Xie; A-L Benabid; A M Lozano; J Saint-Cyr; L Romito; M F Contarino; M Scerrati; V Fraix; N Van Blercom Journal: Brain Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: A Prochazka; D J Bennett; M J Stephens; S K Patrick; R Sears-Duru; T Roberts; J H Jhamandas Journal: Mov Disord Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Mark B Shapiro; David E Vaillancourt; Molly M Sturman; Leo Verhagen Metman; Roy A E Bakay; Daniel M Corcos Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.802