Cited by 50Neurological disorders and treatmentsNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Consistent linear and non-linear responses to invasive electrical brain stimulation across individuals and primate species with implanted electrodes

Open access
Basu, Ishita, Robertson, Madeline M., Crocker, Britni, Peled, Noam, Farnes, Kara, Vallejo-Lopez, Deborah I., Deng, Helen, Thombs, Matthew +8 more·2019·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electrical neuromodulation via implanted electrodes is used in treating numerous neurological disorders, yet our knowledge of how different brain regions respond to varying stimulation parameters is sparse. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the neural response to electrical stimulation is both region-specific and non-linearly related to amplitude and frequency. METHODS: We examined evoked neural responses following 400 ms trains of 10-400 Hz electrical stimulation ranging from 0.1 to 10 mA. We stimulated electrodes implanted in cingulate cortex (dorsal anterior cingulate and rostral anterior cingulate) and subcortical regions (nucleus accumbens, amygdala) of non-human primates (NHP, N = 4) and patients with intractable epilepsy (N = 15) being monitored via intracranial electrodes. Recordings were performed in prefrontal, subcortical, and temporal lobe locations. RESULTS: In subcortical regions as well as dorsal and rostral anterior cingulate cortex, response waveforms depended non-linearly on frequency (Pearson's linear correlation r < 0.39), but linearly on current (r > 0.58). These relationships between location, and input-output characteristics were similar in homologous brain regions with average Pearson's linear correlation values r > 0.75 between species and linear correlation values between participants r > 0.75 across frequency and current values per brain region. Evoked waveforms could be described by three main principal components (PCs) which allowed us to successfully predict response waveforms across individuals and across frequencies using PC strengths as functions of current and frequency using brain region specific regression models. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a framework for creation of an atlas of input-output relationships which could be used in the principled selection of stimulation parameters per brain region.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2019.03.007

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent work from the authors' lab suggests that circuit responses to DBS-like neurostimulation are sufficiently consistent across individuals to make modeling a specific construct in a non-human animal and focusing patients' DBS programming around those parameters feasible.

    “Recent work from our lab suggests that circuit responses to DBS-like neurostimulation are sufficiently consistent across individuals to make this paradigm feasible (Basu et al. 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]Krames ES, Peckham PH, Rezai AR, editors. Neuromodulation 2nd Edition Academic Press; 2018.
  2. [34]Camprodon JA, Rauch SL, Greenberg BD, Dougherty DD, editors. Psychiatric neurotherapeutics: contemporary surgical and device-based treatments 1st ed. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Basu, I., Robertson, M. M., Crocker, B., Peled, N., Farnes, K., Vallejo-Lopez, D. I., Deng, H., Thombs, M., Martinez-Rubio, C., Cheng, J. J., McDonald, E., Dougherty, D. D., Eskandar, E. N., Widge, A. S., Paulk, A. C., & Cash, S. S.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Paulk, Angelique C.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
877-892
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W2921548349
Cited by
50
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
electrical neuromodulation, implanted electrodes, input-output relationship, stimulation frequency, stimulation amplitude, nonlinear response, anterior cingulate cortex, nucleus accumbens, amygdala, drug-resistant epilepsy, non-human primates, principal component analysis, stimulation parameter selection
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Macaca mulatta, Male, Middle Aged, Nucleus Accumbens, Primates, Species Specificity, Stereotaxic Techniques, Deep Brain Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review