Advancing neuromodulation using a dynamic control framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current state of neuromodulation can be cast in a classical dynamic control framework such that the nervous system is the classical "plant", the neural stimulator is the controller, tools to collect clinical data are the sensors, and the physician's judgment is the state estimator. This framework characterizes the types of opportunities available to advance neuromodulation. In particular, technology can potentially address two dominant factors limiting the performance of the control system: "observability," the ability to observe the state of the system from output measurements, and "controllability," the ability to drive the system to a desired state using control actuation. Improving sensors and actuation methods are necessary to address these factors. Equally important is improving state estimation by understanding the neural processes underlying diseases. Development of enabling technology to utilize control theory principles facilitates investigations into improving intervention as well as research into the dynamic properties of the nervous system and mechanisms of action of therapies. In this paper, we provide an overview of the control system framework for neuromodulation, its practical challenges, and investigational devices applying this framework for limited applications. To help motivate future efforts, we describe our chronically implantable, low-power neural stimulation system, which integrates sensing, actuation, and state estimation. This research system has been implanted and used in an ovine to address novel research questions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".