4.6 Review

Closed-Loop Implantable Therapeutic Neuromodulation Systems Based on Neurochemical Monitoring

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00808

关键词

neurochemical monitoring; closed loop neuromodulation; deep brain stimulation (DBS); vagus nerve stimulation (VNS); FSCV; chemometrics

资金

  1. European Research Council (Synergy Grant) [319818]
  2. UK EPSRC [EP/N002474/1]
  3. EPSRC-Imperial Impact Acceleration Award
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [319818] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  5. BBSRC [BB/L018268/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. EPSRC [EP/K009842/1, EP/N002474/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Closed-loop or intelligent neuromodulation allows adjustable, personalized neuromodulation which usually incorporates the recording of a biomarker, followed by implementation of an algorithm which decides the timing (when?) and strength (how much?) of stimulation. Closed-loop neuromodulation has been shown to have greater benefits compared to open-loop neuromodulation, particularly for therapeutic applications such as pharmacoresistant epilepsy, movement disorders and potentially for psychological disorders such as depression or drug addiction. However, an important aspect of the technique is selection of an appropriate, preferably neural biomarker. Neurochemical sensing can provide high resolution biomarker monitoring for various neurological disorders as well as offer deeper insight into neurological mechanisms. The chemicals of interest being measured, could be ions such as potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca2+), chloride (Cl-), hydrogen (H+) or neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and glutamate. This review focusses on the different building blocks necessary for a neurochemical, closed-loop neuromodulation system including biomarkers, sensors and data processing algorithms. Furthermore, it also highlights the merits and drawbacks of using this biomarker modality.

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

4.6
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