4.7 Review

Studies of the neural mechanisms of deep brain stimulation in rodent models of Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 352-366

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.09.002

关键词

deep brain stimulation; Parkinson's disease; basal ganglia; subthalamic nucleus; animal models; neurological disorders

资金

  1. FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER [R03TW006144] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P01NS019608, R01NS040628, P50NS019608, R01NS043441] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. FIC NIH HHS [TW-006144] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-40628, NS-43441, NS-19608] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several rodent models of deep brain stimulation (DBS) have been developed in recent years. Electrophysiological and neurochemical studies have been performed to examine the mechanisms underlying the effects of DBS. In vitro studies have provided deep insights into the role of ion channels in response to brain stimulation. In vivo studies reveal neural responses in the context of intact neural circuits. Most importantly, recording of neural responses to behaviorally effective DBS in freely moving animals provides a direct means for examining how DBS modulates the basal ganglia thalamocortical circuits and thereby improves motor function. DBS can modulate firing rate, normalize irregular burst firing patterns and reduce low frequency oscillations associated with the Parkinsonian state. Our current efforts are focused on elucidating the mechanisms by which DBS effects on neural circuitry improve motor performance. New behavioral models and improved recording techniques will aide researchers conducting future DBS studies in a variety of behavioral modalities and enable new treatment strategies to be explored, such as closed-loop stimulations based on real time computation of ensemble neural activity. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据