Artifact characterization and mitigation techniques during concurrent sensing and stimulation using bidirectional deep brain stimulation platforms
Michaela E. Alarie, Nicole R. Provenza, Michelle Avendano-Ortega, Sarah A. McKay, Ayan S. Waite, Raissa K. Mathura, Jeffrey A. Herron, Sameer A. Sheth, David A. Borton & Wayne K. Goodman
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16 (2022)
Abstract
Bidirectional deep brain stimulation platforms have enabled a surge in hours of recordings in naturalistic environments, allowing further insight into neurological and psychiatric disease states. However, high amplitude, high frequency stimulation generates artifacts that contaminate neural signals and hinder our ability to interpret the data. This is especially true in psychiatric disorders, for which high amplitude stimulation is commonly applied to deep brain structures where the native neural activity is miniscule in comparison. Here, we characterized artifact sources in recordings from a bidirectional DBS platform, the Medtronic Summit RC + S, with the goal of optimizing recording configurations to improve signal to noise ratio. Data were collected from three subjects in a clinical trial of DBS for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Stimulation was provided bilaterally to the ventral capsule/ventral striatum using two independent implantable neurostimulators. We first manipulated DBS amplitude within safe limits to characterize the impact of stimulation artifacts on neural recordings. We found that high amplitude stimulation produces slew overflow, defined as exceeding the rate of change that the analog to digital converter can accurately measure. Overflow led to expanded spectral distortion of the stimulation artifact, with a six fold increase in the bandwidth of the 150.6 Hz stimulation artifact from 147–153 to 140–180 Hz. By increasing sense blank values during high amplitude stimulation, we reduced overflow by as much as 30% and improved artifact distortion, reducing the bandwidth from 140–180 Hz artifact to 147–153 Hz. We also identified artifacts that shifted in frequency through modulation of telemetry parameters. We found that telemetry ratio changes led to predictable shifts in the center-frequencies of the associated artifacts, allowing us to proactively shift the artifacts outside of our frequency range of interest. Overall, the artifact characterization methods and results described here enable increased data interpretability and unconstrained biomarker exploration using data collected from bidirectional DBS devices.Author Profiles
My notes
Similar books and articles
Signal-Space Projection Suppresses the tACS Artifact in EEG Recordings.Johannes Vosskuhl, Tuomas P. Mutanen, Toralf Neuling, Risto J. Ilmoniemi & Christoph S. Herrmann - 2020 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14.
The Gold-Plated Leucotomy Standard and Deep Brain Stimulation.Grant Gillett - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):35-44.
Deep Brain Stimulation in Children: Parental Authority Versus Shared Decision-Making.Farah Focquaert - 2011 - Neuroethics 6 (3):447-455.
Deep brain stimulation and revising the Mental Health Act: the case for intervention-specific safeguards.Jonathan Pugh, Tipu Aziz, Jonathan Herring & Julian Savulescu - forthcoming - British Journal of Psychiatry.
Electrodes in the brain: Some anthropological and ethical aspects of deep brain stimulation.Elisabeth Hildt - 2006 - International Review of Information Ethics 5 (9):33-39.
Self-implant ambiguity? Understanding self-related changes in deep brain stimulation.Robyn Bluhm & Laura Y. Cabrera - 2022 - Philosophical Explorations 25 (3):367-385.
Deep brain stimulation for prolonged disorders of consciousness.Gilberto K. K. Leung - 2016 - Clinical Ethics 11 (4):105-111.
Situating the self: understanding the effects of deep brain stimulation.Roy Dings & Leon de Bruin - 2016 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 15 (2):151-165.
The Need for Further Fine-Grained Distinctions in Discussions of Authenticity and Deep Brain Stimulation.Jonathan Pugh, Hannah Maslen & Julian Savulescu - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 8 (3):W1-W3.
Perspective: Evolution of Control Variables and Policies for Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease Using Bidirectional Deep-Brain-Computer Interfaces.Helen M. Bronte-Stewart, Matthew N. Petrucci, Johanna J. O’Day, Muhammad Furqan Afzal, Jordan E. Parker, Yasmine M. Kehnemouyi, Kevin B. Wilkins, Gerrit C. Orthlieb & Shannon L. Hoffman - 2020 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14.
Investigation of Methodological and Physiological Factors Influencing Non-Invasive Transcranial Electrical Brain Stimulation.Maike Splittgerber - 2021 - Dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Zu Kiel
Equalization for intracortical microstimulation artifact reduction.P. Chu, R. Muller, A. Koralek, J. M. Carmena, J. M. Rabaey & S. Gambini - unknown
Dimensions of the Threat to the Self Posed by Deep Brain Stimulation: Personal Identity, Authenticity, and Autonomy.Przemysław Zawadzki - 2020 - Diametros 18 (69):71-98.
Does DBS Alienate Identity or Does It Simply Fail to Restore Identity Already Eroded by Illness?Anke Snoek - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 8 (2):114-115.
Analytics
Added to PP
2022-10-21
Downloads
1 (#1,500,695)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
2022-10-21
Downloads
1 (#1,500,695)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
Historical graph of downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.