Cargando…
Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials
BACKGROUND: While single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES) is increasingly used to study effective connectivity, the effects of varying stimulation parameters on the resulting cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) have not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10330807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37141936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.023 |
_version_ | 1785070152964898816 |
---|---|
author | Hays, Mark A. Kamali, Golnoosh Koubeissi, Mohamad Z. Sarma, Sridevi V. Crone, Nathan E. Smith, Rachel J. Kang, Joon Y. |
author_facet | Hays, Mark A. Kamali, Golnoosh Koubeissi, Mohamad Z. Sarma, Sridevi V. Crone, Nathan E. Smith, Rachel J. Kang, Joon Y. |
author_sort | Hays, Mark A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: While single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES) is increasingly used to study effective connectivity, the effects of varying stimulation parameters on the resulting cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) have not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the interacting effects of stimulation pulse width, current intensity, and charge on CCEPs through an extensive testing of this parameter space and analysis of several response metrics. METHODS: We conducted SPES in 11 patients undergoing intracranial EEG monitoring using five combinations of current intensity (1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 7.5 mA) and pulse width at each of three charges (0.750, 1.125, and 1.500 μC/phase) to study how CCEP amplitude, distribution, latency, morphology, and stimulus artifact amplitude vary with each parameter. RESULTS: Stimulations with a greater charge or a greater current intensity and shorter pulse width at a given charge generally resulted in greater CCEP amplitudes and spatial distributions, shorter latencies, and increased waveform correlation. These effects interacted such that stimulations with the lowest charge and highest current intensities resulted in greater response amplitudes and spatial distributions than stimulations with the highest charge and lowest current intensities. Stimulus artifact amplitude increased with charge, but this could be mitigated by using shorter pulse widths. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that individual combinations of current intensity and pulse width, in addition to charge, are important determinants of CCEP magnitude, morphology, and spatial extent. Together, these findings suggest that high current intensity, short pulse width stimulations are optimal SPES settings for eliciting strong and consistent responses while minimizing charge. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10330807 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103308072023-07-10 Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials Hays, Mark A. Kamali, Golnoosh Koubeissi, Mohamad Z. Sarma, Sridevi V. Crone, Nathan E. Smith, Rachel J. Kang, Joon Y. Brain Stimul Article BACKGROUND: While single pulse electrical stimulation (SPES) is increasingly used to study effective connectivity, the effects of varying stimulation parameters on the resulting cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) have not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the interacting effects of stimulation pulse width, current intensity, and charge on CCEPs through an extensive testing of this parameter space and analysis of several response metrics. METHODS: We conducted SPES in 11 patients undergoing intracranial EEG monitoring using five combinations of current intensity (1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 7.5 mA) and pulse width at each of three charges (0.750, 1.125, and 1.500 μC/phase) to study how CCEP amplitude, distribution, latency, morphology, and stimulus artifact amplitude vary with each parameter. RESULTS: Stimulations with a greater charge or a greater current intensity and shorter pulse width at a given charge generally resulted in greater CCEP amplitudes and spatial distributions, shorter latencies, and increased waveform correlation. These effects interacted such that stimulations with the lowest charge and highest current intensities resulted in greater response amplitudes and spatial distributions than stimulations with the highest charge and lowest current intensities. Stimulus artifact amplitude increased with charge, but this could be mitigated by using shorter pulse widths. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that individual combinations of current intensity and pulse width, in addition to charge, are important determinants of CCEP magnitude, morphology, and spatial extent. Together, these findings suggest that high current intensity, short pulse width stimulations are optimal SPES settings for eliciting strong and consistent responses while minimizing charge. 2023 2023-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10330807/ /pubmed/37141936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.023 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Article Hays, Mark A. Kamali, Golnoosh Koubeissi, Mohamad Z. Sarma, Sridevi V. Crone, Nathan E. Smith, Rachel J. Kang, Joon Y. Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title | Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title_full | Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title_fullStr | Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title_full_unstemmed | Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title_short | Towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: High current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
title_sort | towards optimizing single pulse electrical stimulation: high current intensity, short pulse width stimulation most effectively elicits evoked potentials |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10330807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37141936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haysmarka towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT kamaligolnoosh towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT koubeissimohamadz towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT sarmasrideviv towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT cronenathane towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT smithrachelj towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials AT kangjoony towardsoptimizingsinglepulseelectricalstimulationhighcurrentintensityshortpulsewidthstimulationmosteffectivelyelicitsevokedpotentials |