↓ Skip to main content

Model-Based Comparison of Deep Brain Stimulation Array Functionality with Varying Number of Radial Electrodes and Machine Learning Feature Sets

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Model-Based Comparison of Deep Brain Stimulation Array Functionality with Varying Number of Radial Electrodes and Machine Learning Feature Sets
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin A. Teplitzky, Laura M. Zitella, YiZi Xiao, Matthew D. Johnson

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) leads with radially distributed electrodes have potential to improve clinical outcomes through more selective targeting of pathways and networks within the brain. However, increasing the number of electrodes on clinical DBS leads by replacing conventional cylindrical shell electrodes with radially distributed electrodes raises practical design and stimulation programming challenges. We used computational modeling to investigate: (1) how the number of radial electrodes impact the ability to steer, shift, and sculpt a region of neural activation (RoA), and (2) which RoA features are best used in combination with machine learning classifiers to predict programming settings to target a particular area near the lead. Stimulation configurations were modeled using 27 lead designs with one to nine radially distributed electrodes. The computational modeling framework consisted of a three-dimensional finite element tissue conductance model in combination with a multi-compartment biophysical axon model. For each lead design, two-dimensional threshold-dependent RoAs were calculated from the computational modeling results. The models showed more radial electrodes enabled finer resolution RoA steering; however, stimulation amplitude, and therefore spatial extent of the RoA, was limited by charge injection and charge storage capacity constraints due to the small electrode surface area for leads with more than four radially distributed electrodes. RoA shifting resolution was improved by the addition of radial electrodes when using uniform multi-cathode stimulation, but non-uniform multi-cathode stimulation produced equivalent or better resolution shifting without increasing the number of radial electrodes. Robust machine learning classification of 15 monopolar stimulation configurations was achieved using as few as three geometric features describing a RoA. The results of this study indicate that, for a clinical-scale DBS lead, more than four radial electrodes minimally improved in the ability to steer, shift, and sculpt axonal activation around a DBS lead and a simple feature set consisting of the RoA center of mass and orientation enabled robust machine learning classification. These results provide important design constraints for future development of high-density DBS arrays.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Researcher 16 23%
Other 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Neuroscience 11 16%
Computer Science 5 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,013,042
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#994
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,800
of 351,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#32
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.