Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Modelling and prediction of the dynamic responses of large-scale brain networks during direct electrical stimulation

Abstract

Direct electrical stimulation can modulate the activity of brain networks for the treatment of several neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders and for restoring lost function. However, precise neuromodulation in an individual requires the accurate modelling and prediction of the effects of stimulation on the activity of their large-scale brain networks. Here, we report the development of dynamic input–output models that predict multiregional dynamics of brain networks in response to temporally varying patterns of ongoing microstimulation. In experiments with two awake rhesus macaques, we show that the activities of brain networks are modulated by changes in both stimulation amplitude and frequency, that they exhibit damping and oscillatory response dynamics, and that variabilities in prediction accuracy and in estimated response strength across brain regions can be explained by an at-rest functional connectivity measure computed without stimulation. Input–output models of brain dynamics may enable precise neuromodulation for the treatment of disease and facilitate the investigation of the functional organization of large-scale brain networks.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Input design, stimulation experiments and IO modelling framework.
Fig. 2: Dynamic IO models accurately predict brain network dynamics in response to stimulation.
Fig. 3: Dynamic IO models predict the response to stimulation across multiple brain regions.
Fig. 4: The dynamic structure of the IO model is essential for accurate prediction.
Fig. 5: At-rest functional controllability explains the variability in the IO prediction accuracy at different network nodes.
Fig. 6: Nonlinear dynamic IO modelling does not outperform the linear dynamic IO models.
Fig. 7: The overall brain network dynamics can be decomposed into input-driven dynamics and intrinsic dynamics to explain two possible sources for forward-prediction error.
Fig. 8: The fitted IO models enable closed-loop control of a simulated internal brain state.

Data availability

The main data supporting the results in this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. The raw and analysed datasets generated during the study are too large to be publicly shared, but are available for research purposes from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The custom computer code in this study is available at https://github.com/ShanechiLab/DynamicStimulation.

References

  1. 1.

    Shanechi, M. M. Brain–machine interfaces from motor to mood. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1554–1564 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hoang, K. B., Cassar, I. R., Grill, W. M. & Turner, D. A. Biomarkers and stimulation algorithms for adaptive brain stimulation. Front. Neurosci. 11, 564 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lo, M. C. & Widge, A. S. Closed-loop neuromodulation systems: next-generation treatments for psychiatric illness. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 29, 191–204 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ashkan, K., Rogers, P., Bergman, H. & Ughratdar, I. Insights into the mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 13, 548–554 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Deuschl, G. & Agid, Y. Subthalamic neurostimulation for Parkinson’s disease with early fluctuations: balancing the risks and benefits. Lancet Neurol. 12, 1025–1034 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fisher, R. et al. Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of thalamus for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 51, 899–908 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Boccard, S. G., Pereira, E. A. & Aziz, T. Z. Deep brain stimulation for chronic pain. J. Clin. Neurosci. 22, 1537–1543 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dandekar, M., Fenoy, A., Carvalho, A., Soares, J. & Quevedo, J. Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: an integrative review of preclinical and clinical findings and translational implications. Mol. Psychiatry 23, 1094 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Koning, P. P., de, Figee, M., Munckhof, P., van den, Schuurman, P. R. & Denys, D. Current status of deep brain stimulation for obsessive–compulsive disorder: a clinical review of different targets. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 13, 274–282 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Williams, Z. M. & Eskandar, E. N. Selective enhancement of associative learning by microstimulation of the anterior caudate. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 562 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chang, E. F., Kurteff, G. & Wilson, S. M. Selective interference with syntactic encoding during sentence production by direct electrocortical stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 411–420 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Whitmire, C. J., Millard, D. C. & Stanley, G. B. Thalamic state control of cortical paired-pulse dynamics. J. Neurophysiol. 117, 163–177 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rao, V. R. et al. Direct electrical stimulation of lateral orbitofrontal cortex acutely improves mood in individuals with symptoms of depression. Curr. Biol. 28, 3893–3902 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hartevelt, T. Jvan et al. Neural plasticity in human brain connectivity: the effects of long term deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 9, e86496 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Saenger, V. M. et al. Uncovering the underlying mechanisms and whole-brain dynamics of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Sci. Rep. 7, 9882 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Basu, I. et al. Consistent linear and non-linear responses to invasive electrical brain stimulation across individuals and primate species with implanted electrodes. Brain Stimul. 12, 877–892 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Crowther, L. J. et al. A quantitative method for evaluating cortical responses to electrical stimulation. J. Neurosci. Methods 311, 67–75 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Yang, Y., Connolly, A. T. & Shanechi, M. M. A control-theoretic system identification framework and a real-time closed-loop clinical simulation testbed for electrical brain stimulation. J. Neural Eng. 15, 066007 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Osorio, I. et al. An introduction to contingent (closed-loop) brain electrical stimulation for seizure blockage, to ultra-short-term clinical trials, and to multidimensional statistical analysis of therapeutic efficacy. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 18, 533–544 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Little, S. et al. Bilateral adaptive deep brain stimulation is effective in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 87, 717–721 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Shirvalkar, P., Veuthey, T. L., Dawes, H. E. & Chang, E. F. Closed-loop deep brain stimulation for refractory chronic pain. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 12, 18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sani, O. G. et al. Mood variations decoded from multi-site intracranial human brain activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 954–961 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kirkby, L. A. et al. An amygdala–hippocampus subnetwork that encodes variation in human mood. Cell 175, 1688–1700 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Etkin, A. & Wager, T. D. Functional neuroimaging of anxiety: a meta-analysis of emotional processing in PTSD, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. Am. J. Psychiatry 164, 1476–1488 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E. & Phillips, M. L. Major depressive disorder: new clinical, neurobiological, and treatment perspectives. Lancet 379, 1045–1055 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Williams, L. M. Defining biotypes for depression and anxiety based on large-scale circuit dysfunction: a theoretical review of the evidence and future directions for clinical translation. Depress. Anxiety 34, 9–24 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Montgomery, E. B. & Baker, K. B. Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation and future technical developments. Neurol. Res. 22, 259–266 (2000).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rubin, J. E. & Terman, D. High frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus eliminates pathological thalamic rhythmicity in a computational model. J. Comput. Neurosci. 16, 211–235 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    McIntyre, C. C. & Hahn, P. J. Network perspectives on the mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. Neurobiol. Dis. 38, 329–337 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hahn, P. J. & McIntyre, C. C. Modeling shifts in the rate and pattern of subthalamopallidal network activity during deep brain stimulation. J. Comput. Neurosci. 28, 425–441 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Santaniello, S. et al. Therapeutic mechanisms of high-frequency stimulation in Parkinson’s disease and neural restoration via loop-based reinforcement. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E586–E595 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Stefanescu, R. A., Shivakeshavan, R. & Talathi, S. S. Computational models of epilepsy. Seizure 21, 748–759 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sritharan, D. & Sarma, S. V. Fragility in dynamic networks: application to neural networks in the epileptic cortex. Neural Comput. 26, 2294–2327 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Feng, X. J., Shea-Brown, E., Greenwald, B., Kosut, R. & Rabitz, H. Optimal deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus–a computational study. J. Comput. Neurosci. 23, 265–282 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Brocker, D. T. et al. Optimized temporal pattern of brain stimulation designed by computational evolution. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaah3532 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Liu, J., Khalil, H. K. & Oweiss, K. G. Model-based analysis and control of a network of basal ganglia spiking neurons in the normal and parkinsonian states. J. Neural Eng. 8, 045002 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Santaniello, S., Fiengo, G., Glielmo, L. & Grill, W. M. Closed-loop control of deep brain stimulation: a simulation study. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19, 15–24 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Millard, D. C., Wang, Q., Gollnick, C. A. & Stanley, G. B. System identification of the nonlinear dynamics in the thalamocortical circuit in response to patterned thalamic microstimulation in vivo. J. Neural Eng. 10, 066011 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bolus, M., Willats, A., Whitmire, C., Rozell, C. & Stanley, G. Design strategies for dynamic closed-loop optogenetic neurocontrol in vivo. J. Neural Eng. 15, 026011 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Basu, I. et al. A neural mass model to predict electrical stimulation evoked responses in human and non-human primate brain. J. Neural Eng. 15, 066012 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Khambhati, A. N. et al. Functional control of electrophysiological network architecture using direct neurostimulation in humans. Netw. Neuroscience 3, 848–877 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Stiso, J. et al. White matter network architecture guides direct electrical stimulation through optimal state transitions. Cell Rep. 28, 2554–2566 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hsieh, H.-L., Wong, Y. T., Pesaran, B. & Shanechi, M. M. Multiscale modeling and decoding algorithms for spike-field activity. J. Neural Eng. 16, 016018 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    de Hemptinne, C. et al. Therapeutic deep brain stimulation reduces cortical phase-amplitude coupling in Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 779–786 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kondabolu, K. et al. Striatal cholinergic interneurons generate beta and gamma oscillations in the corticostriatal circuit and produce motor deficits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E3159–E3168 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Pasqualetti, F., Zampieri, S. & Bullo, F. Controllability metrics, limitations and algorithms for complex networks. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 1, 40–52 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Gu, S. et al. Controllability of structural brain networks. Nat. Commun. 6, 8414 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Muldoon, S. F. et al. Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1005076 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Tang, E. et al. Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics. Nat. Commun. 8, 1252 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Medaglia, J. D. et al. Network controllability in the inferior frontal gyrus relates to controlled language variability and susceptibility to TMS. J. Neurosci. 38, 6399–6410 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Pesaran, B. et al. Investigating large-scale brain dynamics using field potential recordings: analysis and interpretation. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 903–919 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Ljung, L. System Identification (Prentice Hall, 1999).

  53. 53.

    Tass, P. A. A model of desynchronizing deep brain stimulation with a demand-controlled coordinated reset of neural subpopulations. Biol. Cybern. 89, 81–88 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Tass, P. A. & Hauptmann, C. Therapeutic modulation of synaptic connectivity with desynchronizing brain stimulation. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 64, 53–61 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Tass, P. A. et al. Coordinated reset has sustained aftereffects in Parkinsonian monkeys. Ann. Neurol. 72, 816–820 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Barrat, A., Barthelemy, M., Pastor-Satorras, R. & Vespignani, A. The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 3747–3752 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Van Wijk, B. C., Stam, C. J. & Daffertshofer, A. Comparing brain networks of different size and connectivity density using graph theory. PLoS ONE 5, e13701 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Sani, O. G., Abbaspourazad, H., Wong, Y. T., Pesaran, B. & Shanechi, M. M. Modeling behaviorally relevant neural dynamics enabled by preferential subspace identification. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 140–149 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Herzfeld, D. J., Kojima, Y., Soetedjo, R. & Shadmehr, R. Encoding of action by the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum. Nature 526, 439 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Churchland, M. M. et al. Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature 487, 51 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Anumanchipalli, G. K., Chartier, J. & Chang, E. F. Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 568, 493–498 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Vaz, A. P., Inati, S. K., Brunel, N. & Zaghloul, K. A. Coupled ripple oscillations between the medial temporal lobe and neocortex retrieve human memory. Science 363, 975–978 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Markowitz, D. A., Curtis, C. E. & Pesaran, B. Multiple component networks support working memory in prefrontal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11084–11089 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Denfield, G. H., Ecker, A. S., Shinn, T. J., Bethge, M. & Tolias, A. S. Attentional fluctuations induce shared variability in macaque primary visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 9, 2654 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Han, X., Xian, S. X. & Moore, T. Dynamic sensitivity of area V4 neurons during saccade preparation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 13046–13051 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Jamali, M. et al. Dorsolateral prefrontal neurons mediate subjective decisions and their variation in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1010–1020 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Zavala, B. A., Jang, A. I. & Zaghloul, K. A. Human subthalamic nucleus activity during non-motor decision making. eLife 6, e31007 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Herzfeld, D. J., Kojima, Y., Soetedjo, R. & Shadmehr, R. Encoding of error and learning to correct that error by the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 736–743 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Zheng, H. J., Wang, Q. & Stanley, G. B. Adaptive shaping of cortical response selectivity in the vibrissa pathway. J. Neurophysiol. 113, 3850–3865 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Froudarakis, E. et al. Population code in mouse V1 facilitates readout of natural scenes through increased sparseness. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 851–857 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Susilaradeya, D. et al. Extrinsic and intrinsic dynamics in movement intermittency. eLife 8, e40145 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Hall, T. M., Carvalho, Fde & Jackson, A. A common structure underlies low-frequency cortical dynamics in movement, sleep, and sedation. Neuron 83, 1185–1199 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Abbaspourazad, H., Choudhury, M., Wong, Y. T., Pesaran, B. & Shanechi, M. M. Multiscale low-dimensional motor cortical state dynamics predict naturalistic reach-and-grasp behavior. Nat. Commun. (in the press).

  74. 74.

    Shenoy, K. V. & Carmena, J. M. Combining decoder design and neural adaptation in brain-machine interfaces. Neuron 84, 665–680 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Abbaspourazad, H., Hsieh, H.-L. & Shanechi, M. M. A multiscale dynamical modeling and identification framework for spike-field activity. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 1128–1138 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kao, J. C. et al. Single-trial dynamics of motor cortex and their applications to brain-machine interfaces. Nat. Commun. 6, 7759 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Irwin, Z. et al. Neural control of finger movement via intracortical brain–machine interface. J. Neural Eng. 14, 066004 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Vaskov, A. K. et al. Cortical decoding of individual finger group motions using ReFIT Kalman filter. Front. Neurosci. 12, 751 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Keller, C. J. et al. Mapping human brain networks with cortico-cortical evoked potentials. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20130528 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Holtzheimer, P. E. et al. Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a multisite, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Psychiat. 4, 839–849 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Dougherty, D. D. et al. A randomized sham-controlled trial of deep brain stimulation of the ventral capsule/ventral striatum for chronic treatment-resistant depression. Biol. Psychiatry 78, 240–248 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Ezzyat, Y. et al. Closed-loop stimulation of temporal cortex rescues functional networks and improves memory. Nat. Commun. 9, 365 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Deadwyler, S. A. et al. A cognitive prosthesis for memory facilitation by closed-loop functional ensemble stimulation of hippocampal neurons in primate brain. Exp. Neurol. 287, 452–460 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Zanos, S., Richardson, A. G., Shupe, L., Miles, F. P. & Fetz, E. E. The Neurochip-2: an autonomous head-fixed computer for recording and stimulating in freely behaving monkeys. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19, 427–435 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Zanos, S., Rembado, I., Chen, D. & Fetz, E. E. Phase-locked stimulation during cortical beta oscillations produces bidirectional synaptic plasticity in awake monkeys. Curr. Biol. 28, 2515–2526 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Etkin, A. et al. Using fMRI connectivity to define a treatment-resistant form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Sci. Transl. Med. 11, eaal3236 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Ahmadipour, P., Yang, Y., Chang, E. F. & Shanechi, M. M. Adaptive tracking of human ECoG network dynamics. J. Neural Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/abae42 (2020).

  88. 88.

    Mazzoni, A. et al. Computing the local field potential (LFP) from integrate-and-fire network models. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004584 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Tehovnik, E., Tolias, A., Sultan, F., Slocum, W. & Logothetis, N. Direct and indirect activation of cortical neurons by electrical microstimulation. J. Neurophysiol. 96, 512–521 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Haber, S. N. in Decision Neuroscience: An Integrative Perspective (eds Dreher, J.-C. & Tremblay, L.) 3–19 (Elsevier, 2017).

  91. 91.

    Choi, J., Goncharov, V., Kleinbart, J., Orsborn, A. & Pesaran, B. Monkey-MIMMS: Towards automated cellular resolution large-scale two-photon microscopy in the awake macaque monkey. In 40th Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 3013–3016 (IEEE, 2018).

  92. 92.

    Kleinbart, J. E. et al. A modular implant system for multimodal recording and manipulation of the primate brain. In 40th Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 3362–3365 (IEEE, 2018).

  93. 93.

    Bighamian, R., Wong, Y. T., Pesaran, B. & Shanechi, M. M. Sparse model-based estimation of functional dependence in high-dimensional field and spike multiscale networks. J. Neural Eng. 16, 056022 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Wang, C. & Shanechi, M. M. Estimating multiscale direct causality graphs in neural spike-field networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 857–866 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Yang, Y., Sani, O., Chang, E. F. & Shanechi, M. M. Dynamic network modeling and dimensionality reduction for human ECoG activity. J. Neural Eng. 16, 056014 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Garcia, L., d Alessandro, G., Bioulac, B. & Hammond, C. High-frequency stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: more or less? Trends Neurosci. 28, 209–216 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Qiao, S., Brown, K. A., Orsborn, A. L., Ferrentino, B. & Pesaran, B. Development of semi-chronic microdrive system for large-scale circuit mapping in macaque mesolimbic and basal ganglia systems. In 38th Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 5825–5828 (IEEE, 2016).

  98. 98.

    Dotson, N. M., Hoffman, S. J., Goodell, B. & Gray, C. M. A large-scale semi-chronic microdrive recording system for non-human primates. Neuron 96, 769–782 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Yang, Y. et al. Developing a personalized closed-loop controller of medically-induced coma in a rodent model. J. Neural Eng. 16, 036022 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Yang, Y. & Shanechi, M. M. An adaptive and generalizable closed-loop system for control of medically induced coma and other states of anesthesia. J. Neural Eng. 13, 066019 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Lilly, J. C., Hughes, J. R., Alvord, E. C. Jr & Galkin, T. W. Brief, noninjurious electric waveform for stimulation of the brain. Science 121, 468–469 (1955).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Herrington, T. M., Cheng, J. J. & Eskandar, E. N. Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. J. Neurophysiol. 115, 19–38 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Hashimoto, T., Elder, C. M. & Vitek, J. L. A template subtraction method for stimulus artifact removal in high-frequency deep brain stimulation. J. Neurosci. Methods 113, 181–186 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Erez, Y., Tischler, H., Moran, A. & Bar-Gad, I. Generalized framework for stimulus artifact removal. J. Neurosci. Methods 191, 45–59 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Babadi, B. & Brown, E. N. A review of multitaper spectral analysis. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61, 1555–1564 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Schwartz, A. B., Cui, X. T., Weber, D. J. & Moran, D. W. Brain-controlled interfaces: movement restoration with neural prosthetics. Neuron 52, 205–220 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Thakor, N. V. Translating the brain-machine interface. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 210ps17 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    So, K., Dangi, S., Orsborn, A. L., Gastpar, M. C. & Carmena, J. M. Subject-specific modulation of local field potential spectral power during brain–machine interface control in primates. J. Neural Eng. 11, 026002 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Stavisky, S. D., Kao, J. C., Nuyujukian, P., Ryu, S. I. & Shenoy, K. V. A high performing brain–machine interface driven by low-frequency local field potentials alone and together with spikes. J. Neural Eng. 12, 036009 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Sarnthein, J. & Jeanmonod, D. High thalamocortical theta coherence in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 27, 124–131 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Neumann, W.-J. et al. Subthalamic synchronized oscillatory activity correlates with motor impairment in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 31, 1748–1751 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Wijk, B. Cvan et al. Subthalamic nucleus phase–amplitude coupling correlates with motor impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 127, 2010–2019 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Van Overschee, P. & De Moor, B. Subspace Identification for Linear Systems: Theory, Implementation and Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).

  114. 114.

    Schalk, G. et al. Decoding two-dimensional movement trajectories using electrocorticographic signals in humans. J. Neural Eng. 4, 264 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Pistohl, T., Ball, T., Schulze-Bonhage, A., Aertsen, A. & Mehring, C. Prediction of arm movement trajectories from ECoG-recordings in humans. J. Neurosci. Methods 167, 105–114 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Bansal, A. K., Truccolo, W., Vargas-Irwin, C. E. & Donoghue, J. P. Decoding 3D reach and grasp from hybrid signals in motor and premotor cortices: spikes, multiunit activity, and local field potentials. J. Neurophysiol. 107, 1337–1355 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Zhang, Q. Using wavelet network in nonparametric estimation. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 8, 227–236 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Akaike, H. in Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike (eds Parzen, E. et al.) 199–213 (Springer, 1998).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support of the Army Research Office under contract W911NF-16-1-0368 (to M.M.S.) as part of the collaboration between the US Department of Defense, the UK Ministry of Defence and the UK Engineering and Physical Research Council under the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative. We also acknowledge support of US National Institutes of Health BRAIN grant R01-NS104923 (to B.P. and M.M.S.). Finally, the we acknowledge the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-14-2-0043 (to M.M.S. and B.P.), issued by the Army Research Office contracting office in support of the DARPA SUBNETS programme. The views, opinions and/or findings expressed are those of the author(s) and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the US Government. We thank B. Goodell, C. Gray, J. E. Kleinbart and A. Orsborn for assistance with chamber and microdrive system design; S. Frey and B. Hynes for custom modifications to the Brainsight system; R. Shewcraft, J. Choi, M. Rubiano, Y. Jang and O. Martin for help with animal preparation and care; and K. Brown for help with MRI analysis.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.M.S. and Y.Y. conceived the study and developed the IO modelling framework. Y.Y. and M.M.S. designed the multi-trial stochastic stimulation and cross-validation. Y.Y., O.G.S., S.Q., B.P. and M.M.S. designed the stimulation experiments. S.Q. and B.P. implemented the stimulation experiments. S.Q., J.I.S, B.F. and B.P. performed the experiments and data collection. Y.Y. and M.M.S. implemented and performed the modelling and analyses. O.G.S., Y.Y. and M.M.S. designed and implemented the closed-loop simulations. M.M.S. supervised all the modelling and analysis work. B.P. supervised all the experimental work. Y.Y. and M.M.S. wrote the manuscript with input from S.Q., O.G.S. and B.P.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam M. Shanechi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, discussion, figures, tables and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y., Qiao, S., Sani, O.G. et al. Modelling and prediction of the dynamic responses of large-scale brain networks during direct electrical stimulation. Nat Biomed Eng 5, 324–345 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-020-00666-w

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing