Autonomous Optimization of Targeted Stimulation of Neuronal Networks

Driven by clinical needs and progress in neurotechnology, targeted interaction with neuronal networks is of increasing importance. Yet, the dynamics of interaction between intrinsic ongoing activity in neuronal networks and their response to stimulation is unknown. Nonetheless, electrical stimulation of the brain is increasingly explored as a therapeutic strategy and as a means to artificially inject information into neural circuits. Strategies using regular or event-triggered fixed stimuli discount the influence of ongoing neuronal activity on the stimulation outcome and are therefore not optimal to induce specific responses reliably. Yet, without suitable mechanistic models, it is hardly possible to optimize such interactions, in particular when desired response features are network-dependent and are initially unknown. In this proof-of-principle study, we present an experimental paradigm using reinforcement-learning (RL) to optimize stimulus settings autonomously and evaluate the learned control strategy using phenomenological models. We asked how to (1) capture the interaction of ongoing network activity, electrical stimulation and evoked responses in a quantifiable ‘state’ to formulate a well-posed control problem, (2) find the optimal state for stimulation, and (3) evaluate the quality of the solution found. Electrical stimulation of generic neuronal networks grown from rat cortical tissue in vitro evoked bursts of action potentials (responses). We show that the dynamic interplay of their magnitudes and the probability to be intercepted by spontaneous events defines a trade-off scenario with a network-specific unique optimal latency maximizing stimulus efficacy. An RL controller was set to find this optimum autonomously. Across networks, stimulation efficacy increased in 90% of the sessions after learning and learned latencies strongly agreed with those predicted from open-loop experiments. Our results show that autonomous techniques can exploit quantitative relationships underlying activity-response interaction in biological neuronal networks to choose optimal actions. Simple phenomenological models can be useful to validate the quality of the resulting controllers.

[1]  Csaba Szepesvári,et al.  Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning , 2010, Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.

[2]  Shane Legg,et al.  Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning , 2015, Nature.

[3]  R. Yuste,et al.  Attractor dynamics of network UP states in the neocortex , 2003, Nature.

[4]  Marwan Hariz,et al.  Long‐term efficacy of thalamic deep brain stimulation for tremor: Double‐blind assessments , 2003, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[5]  U. Egert,et al.  Quantitative examination of stimulus-response relations in cortical networks in vitro. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  Ron Meir,et al.  Tradeoffs and Constraints on Neural Representation in Networks of Cortical Neurons , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  M. Kringelbach,et al.  Translational principles of deep brain stimulation , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[8]  Andrea Hasenstaub,et al.  State Changes Rapidly Modulate Cortical Neuronal Responsiveness , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  Francisco C. Santos,et al.  Cooperation Prevails When Individuals Adjust Their Social Ties , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[10]  Joelle Pineau,et al.  Adaptive Treatment of Epilepsy via Batch-mode Reinforcement Learning , 2008, AAAI.

[11]  Peter Dayan,et al.  Technical Note: Q-Learning , 2004, Machine Learning.

[12]  Danny Eytan,et al.  Dynamics and Effective Topology Underlying Synchronization in Networks of Cortical Neurons , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  Martin A. Riedmiller Neural Fitted Q Iteration - First Experiences with a Data Efficient Neural Reinforcement Learning Method , 2005, ECML.

[14]  A. Benabid,et al.  Five-year follow-up of bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in advanced Parkinson's disease. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  G. Gerstein,et al.  Trial-to-Trial Variability and State-Dependent Modulation of Auditory-Evoked Responses in Cortex , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Shimon Marom,et al.  Controlling neural network responsiveness: tradeoffs and constraints , 2014, Front. Neuroeng..

[17]  Pierre Geurts,et al.  Tree-Based Batch Mode Reinforcement Learning , 2005, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[18]  D. McCormick,et al.  Turning on and off recurrent balanced cortical activity , 2003, Nature.

[19]  Rajesh Pahwa,et al.  Efficacy of unilateral deep brain stimulation of the vim nucleus of the thalamus for essential head tremor , 1999, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[20]  T.B. DeMarse,et al.  MeaBench: A toolset for multi-electrode data acquisition and on-line analysis , 2005, Conference Proceedings. 2nd International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, 2005..

[21]  P. Brown,et al.  Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation In Advanced Parkinson Disease , 2013, Annals of neurology.

[22]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  Spontaneous coordinated activity in cultured networks: Analysis of multiple ignition sites, primary circuits, and burst phase delay distributions , 2008, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[23]  Biyu J. He Spontaneous and Task-Evoked Brain Activity Negatively Interact , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  A. Grinvald,et al.  Interaction of sensory responses with spontaneous depolarization in layer 2/3 barrel cortex , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  S. Haber,et al.  Closed-Loop Deep Brain Stimulation Is Superior in Ameliorating Parkinsonism , 2011, Neuron.

[26]  Peter Dayan,et al.  Q-learning , 1992, Machine Learning.

[27]  A. Destée,et al.  Bilateral deep-brain stimulation of the globus pallidus in primary generalized dystonia. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  J. Schiller,et al.  Dynamics of Excitability over Extended Timescales in Cultured Cortical Neurons , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Misha Tsodyks,et al.  The Emergence of Up and Down States in Cortical Networks , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  C. Gray,et al.  Cellular Mechanisms Contributing to Response Variability of Cortical Neurons In Vivo , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  N. Ziv,et al.  Long-Term Relationships between Synaptic Tenacity, Synaptic Remodeling, and Network Activity , 2009, PLoS biology.

[32]  T. Schlaepfer,et al.  Integrative Neuroscience Mini Review Article Industrial Perspective on Deep Brain Stimulation: History, Current State, and Future Developments , 2022 .

[33]  Paul Miller,et al.  Natural stimuli evoke dynamic sequences of states in sensory cortical ensembles , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Tipu Z. Aziz,et al.  Deep brain stimulation for movement disorders and pain , 2005, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[35]  Luca Citi,et al.  Restoring Natural Sensory Feedback in Real-Time Bidirectional Hand Prostheses , 2014, Science Translational Medicine.

[36]  A. Grinvald,et al.  Dynamics of Ongoing Activity: Explanation of the Large Variability in Evoked Cortical Responses , 1996, Science.