Advancing neuromodulation using a dynamic control framework

The current state of neuromodulation can be cast in a classical dynamic control framework such that the nervous system is the classical “plant”, the neural stimulator is the controller, tools to collect clinical data are the sensors, and the physician's judgment is the state estimator. This framework characterizes the types of opportunities available to advance neuromodulation. In particular, technology can potentially address two dominant factors limiting the performance of the control system: “observability,” the ability to observe the state of the system from output measurements, and “controllability,” the ability to drive the system to a desired state using control actuation. Improving sensors and actuation methods are necessary to address these factors. Equally important is improving state estimation by understanding the neural processes underlying diseases. Development of enabling technology to utilize control theory principles facilitates investigations into improving intervention as well as research into the dynamic properties of the nervous system and mechanisms of action of therapies. In this paper, we provide an overview of the control system framework for neuromodulation, its practical challenges, and investigational devices applying this framework for limited applications. To help motivate future efforts, we describe our chronically implantable, low-power neural stimulation system, which integrates sensing, actuation, and state estimation. This research system has been implanted and used in an ovine to address novel research questions.

[1]  R Cameron Craddock,et al.  Disease state prediction from resting state functional connectivity , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  Nuri Firat Ince,et al.  Selection of Optimal Programming Contacts Based on Local Field Potential Recordings From Subthalamic Nucleus in Patients With Parkinson's Disease , 2010, Neurosurgery.

[3]  W. Santa,et al.  Micropower Sensors for Neuroprosthetics , 2007, 2007 IEEE Sensors.

[4]  I. Osorio,et al.  Real‐Time Automated Detection and Quantitative Analysis of Seizures and Short‐Term Prediction of Clinical Onset , 1998, Epilepsia.

[5]  C. McIntyre,et al.  Patient-specific models of deep brain stimulation: Influence of field model complexity on neural activation predictions , 2010, Brain Stimulation.

[6]  S. Stanslaski,et al.  Preliminary validation of an implantable bi-directional neural interface for chronic, in vivo investigation of brain networks , 2011, 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

[7]  S M M Martens,et al.  A generative model approach for decoding in the visual event-related potential-based brain–computer interface speller , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[8]  Peter Brown,et al.  Value of subthalamic nucleus local field potentials recordings in predicting stimulation parameters for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease , 2010, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[9]  H. Freund,et al.  The causal relationship between subcortical local field potential oscillations and Parkinsonian resting tremor , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[10]  Xuan Wei,et al.  Functional electrical stimulation as a neuroprosthetic methodology for enabling closed-loop urinary incontinence treatment , 2011, 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

[11]  Guglielmo Foffani,et al.  Time dependent subthalamic local field potential changes after DBS surgery in Parkinson's disease , 2010, Experimental Neurology.

[12]  Timothy Denison,et al.  An Implantable Optical Stimulation Delivery System for Actuating an Excitable Biosubstrate , 2011, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits.

[13]  Matthew T. Kaufman,et al.  An optogenetic toolbox designed for primates , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.