A theoretical framework for the site-specific and frequency-dependent neuronal effects of deep brain stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation is an established therapy for several neurological disorders; however, its effects on neuronal activity vary across brain regions and depend on stimulation settings. Understanding these variable responses can aid in the development of physiologically-informed stimulation paradigms in existing or prospective indications. OBJECTIVE: Provide experimental and computational insights into the brain-region-specific and frequency-dependent effects of extracellular stimulation on neuronal activity. METHODS: In patients with movement disorders, single-neuron recordings were acquired from the subthalamic nucleus, substantia nigra pars reticulata, ventral intermediate nucleus, or reticular thalamus during microstimulation across various frequencies (1-100 Hz) to assess single-pulse and frequency-response functions. Moreover, a biophysically-realistic computational framework was developed which generated postsynaptic responses under the assumption that electrical stimuli simultaneously activated all convergent presynaptic inputs to stimulation target neurons. The framework took into consideration the relative distributions of excitatory/inhibitory afferent inputs to model site-specific responses, which were in turn embedded within a model of short-term synaptic plasticity to account for stimulation frequency-dependence. RESULTS: We demonstrated microstimulation-evoked excitatory neuronal responses in thalamic structures (which have predominantly excitatory inputs) and inhibitory responses in basal ganglia structures (predominantly inhibitory inputs); however, higher stimulation frequencies led to a loss of site-specificity and convergence towards neuronal suppression. The model confirmed that site-specific responses could be simulated by accounting for local neuroanatomical/microcircuit properties, while suppression of neuronal activity during high-frequency stimulation was mediated by short-term synaptic depression. CONCLUSIONS: Brain-region-specific and frequency-dependant neuronal responses could be simulated by considering neuroanatomical (local microcircuitry) and neurophysiological (short-term plasticity) properties.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".