Persistent synaptic inhibition of the subthalamic nucleus by high frequency stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) provides symptomatic relief in a growing number of neurological indications, but local synaptic dynamics in response to electrical stimulation that may relate to its mechanism of action have not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) study local synaptic dynamics during high frequency extracellular stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN), and (2) compare STN synaptic dynamics with those of the neighboring substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr). METHODS: Two microelectrodes were advanced into the STN and SNr of patients undergoing DBS surgery for Parkinson's disease (PD). Neuronal firing and evoked field potentials (fEPs) were recorded with one microelectrode during stimulation from an adjacent microelectrode. RESULTS: Inhibitory fEPs could be discerned within the STN and their amplitudes predicted bidirectional effects on neuronal firing (p = .013). There were no differences between STN and SNr inhibitory fEP dynamics at low stimulation frequencies (p > .999). However, inhibitory neuronal responses were sustained over time in STN during high frequency stimulation but not in SNr (p < .001) where depression of inhibitory input was coupled with a return of neuronal firing (p = .003). INTERPRETATION: Persistent inhibitory input to the STN suggests a local synaptic mechanism for the suppression of subthalamic firing during high frequency stimulation. Moreover, differences in the resiliency versus vulnerability of inhibitory inputs to the STN and SNr suggest a projection source- and frequency-specificity for this mechanism. The feasibility of targeting electrophysiologically-identified neural structures may provide insight into how DBS achieves frequency-specific modulation of neuronal projections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".