4.7 Article

Classification of electrically-evoked potentials in the parkinsonian subthalamic nucleus region

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29439-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the spatiotemporal features of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in and around the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and uses a linear classifier to predict electrode location. The results show that ECAP responses vary with recording and stimulating electrode locations, providing a subject-specific neuroanatomical basis for selecting electrode configurations in DBS therapy for Parkinson's disease.
Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) generated in the subthalamic nucleus (STN) contain features that may be useful for titrating deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy for Parkinson's disease. Delivering a strong therapeutic effect with DBS therapies, however, relies on selectively targeting neural pathways to avoid inducing side effects. In this study, we investigated the spatiotemporal features of ECAPs in and around the STN across parameter sweeps of stimulation current amplitude, pulse width, and electrode configuration, and used a linear classifier of ECAP responses to predict electrode location. Four non-human primates were implanted unilaterally with either a directional (n = 3) or non-directional (n = 1) DBS lead targeting the sensorimotor STN. ECAP responses were characterized by primary features (within 1.6 ms after a stimulus pulse) and secondary features (between 1.6 and 7.4 ms after a stimulus pulse). Using these features, a linear classifier was able to accurately differentiate electrodes within the STN versus dorsal to the STN in all four subjects. ECAP responses varied systematically with recording and stimulating electrode locations, which provides a subject-specific neuroanatomical basis for selecting electrode configurations in the treatment of Parkinson's disease with DBS therapy.

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