Electroencephalographic read-outs of the modulation of cortical network activity by deep brain stimulation
© The Author(s) 2018
Received: 17 January 2018
Accepted: 15 February 2018
Published: 15 March 2018
Deep brain stimulation (DBS), a reversible and adjustable treatment for neurological and psychiatric refractory disorders, consists in delivering electrical currents to neuronal populations located in subcortical structures. The targets of DBS are spatially restricted, but connect to many parts of the brain, including the cortex, which might explain the observed clinical benefits in terms of symptomatology. The DBS mechanisms of action at a large scale are however poorly understood, which has motivated several groups to recently conduct many research programs to monitor cortical responses to DBS. Here we review the knowledge gathered from the use of electroencephalography (EEG) in patients treated by DBS. We first focus on the methodology to record and process EEG signals concurrently to DBS. In the second part of the review, we address the clinical and scientific benefits brought by EEG/DBS studies so far.
Summary of EEG DBS studies and their principal results. Subjects number were given only for those who had direct stimulation or ON/OFF DBS protocol
Ashby et al. (2001)
CEPs at 3, 5 and 8 ms
Baker et al. (2002)
10 PD, 4 Epi
CEPs from 1 to 400 ms
MacKinnon et al. (2005)
Electrical skin stimulation
CEP at 23 ms
CEPs between 20 and 320 ms
CEPs at 24, 34 and 70 ms
Tisch et al. (2008)
6 Pri Gen Dyst
CEP at 26.6 ms
Eusebio et al. (2009)
CEP at 21 ms
CEPs at 1, 5.7 and 22.2 ms
5 Ess Trem
CEPs at 0.9, 5.6 and 13.9 ms
Gerschlager et al. (1999)
10 PD, 10 HC
Increased contingent negative variation amplitude
Pierantozzi et al. (1999)
Electrical skin stimulation
Increased frontal N30 amplitude
Gerschlager et al. (2001)
Auditory oddball task
No effect on P300 latency
Priori et al. (2001)
Electrical skin stimulation
Reduced N20 amplitude
Passive visual task
Reduced P100 amplitude
Devos et al. (2002)
Wrist flexion movement
Increased contralateral premovement/movement ERD
Devos et al. (2003)
Wrist flexion movement
Increased beta ERS
Devos et al. (2004)
10 PD, 10 HC
Wrist flexion movement
Reduced ERD spread and increased ERD amplitude
Insola et al. (2005)
Electrical skin stimulation
Increased N20 and N30 amplitudes
Silberstein et al. (2005)
Reduced beta cortical coupling
Jech et al. (2006)
Reduced alpha power
Passive visual task
Kovacs et al. (2008)
23 PD, 11 HC
Auditory oddball task
P300 amplitude correlated to DBS voltage
Conte et al. (2010)
13 PD, 13 HC
Somatosensory temporal discrimination task
Reduced parietal SEP amplitude
Klostermann et al. (2010)
Choice response task
Reduced lateralized readiness potentials
Cavanagh et al. (2011)
Inversed theta power relation to RT
Swann et al. (2011)
15 PD, 15 HC
Stop signal task
Increased right frontal beta power
Broadway et al. (2012)
Increased frontal theta cordance
10 PD, 20 HC
Working memory task
Reduced N200 amplitude and increased N200 latency
Figee et al. (2013)
Symptom provocation task
Reduced low frequency ERS
Smolders et al. (2013)
Reduced frontal theta phase stability
Quraan et al. (2014)
12 TRD, 15 HC
Frontal theta and parietal alpha asymmetry dependent on clinical response
Emotional self referential task
Reduced P1 and P3 amplitudes
Gulberti et al. (2015a)
12 PD, 12 HC
Rhythmic auditory stimulation
Reduced P1/N1 amplitude
Gulberti et al. (2015b)
12 PD, 12 HC
Rhythmic auditory stimulation
Normalized beta modulation
Reduced beta power
Sun et al. (2015)
Working memory task
Reduced frontal gamma and beta power and increased theta-gamma coupling
Stop signal task
Reduced P300 amplitude and increased P300 latency and reduced basal ganglia to right frontal cx connection strength
Emotional Stroop task
Reduced N170 amplitude and reduced temporal pole to visual ventral cx connection strength
Methods for studying cortical responses to DBS with EEG
The study of DBS-induced cortical modulation can be performed from different perspectives, either by using cognitive protocols or by studying directly cortical activation following DBS pulses. However, DBS pulses usually induce high amplitude artefacts on EEG recordings, limiting its use.
Depending on the stimulation parameters, the DBS artefact does not need necessarily to be corrected. For instance, with short pulse width or bipolar stimulation, the scalp DBS induced artefact is sharp which enables quantification of fast responses, as early as 3 ms post stimulation (Ashby et al. 2001). This is not the case with monopolar stimulation that induces artefacts up to 30 ms (with DBS of the subthalamic nucleus, STN) (MacKinnon et al. 2005) and 50 ms (with DBS of the globus pallidus internus, GPi) (Tisch et al. 2008) post stimuli, thereby hiding early responses (Zumsteg et al. 2006; Eusebio et al. 2009). Experimentally, it is possible to minimize the presence of the DBS artefact in event-related responses by alternating the anode and cathode electrode contacts, which reverses the sign of the artefact but not that of the neuronal responses. Therefore, averaging recordings with inverted cathode and anode minimizes the artefact amplitude and enables visualization of evoked responses, as early as 1 ms after the artefact (Walker et al. 2012a, b).
If monovariate spectral filtering is insufficient, spatial methods of signal decomposition can be used, e.g. independent component analyses. The components corresponding to the DBS artefact can be identified and removed from the data based on their typical topographical distribution (focal above electrodes) and their temporal and spectral patterns (Gulberti et al. 2015a, b).
Subcortico-cortical evoked responses
Task-related evoked responses
The impact of DBS on cortical networks can be studied during specific tasks (sensory, motor, executive, cognitive or emotional) by comparing EEG recordings with DBS turned ON or OFF, in a sequential manner (Smolders et al. 2013), in randomized counterbalanced order (Cavanagh et al. 2011; Swann et al. 2011; Selzler et al. 2013) and double blind fashion (Kovacs et al. 2008). Both EEG sessions can be recorded on the same day consecutively without electrode repositioning between sessions (Devos et al. 2004).
Alternating EEG recordings with DBS ON and OFF requires to be careful about the DBS washout effect: when turning the stimulator OFF, there might be still ongoing DBS ON carry over effects (Gulberti et al. 2015b), such as the modulation of synaptic plasticity induced by chronic DBS that is not washed out by brief DBS discontinuation (Gulberti et al. 2015a; Quraan et al. 2014). Therefore, it is important to wait sufficiently long, given the ethically acceptable conditions that depend on the pathology, between the DBS setting modification and the beginning of task-related behavioral and EEG recordings. The wash-out time required is highly dependent on the associated symptoms, target and pathology, and hence on the studied brain networks. For instance, in PD, motor symptoms are very quick (a few minutes (Moro et al. 2002)) to appear when the stimulation is turned OFF whereas in TRD, the depressive symptoms may take much more time to come back (from few hours up to several weeks (Mayberg et al. 2005)).
Chronic DBS effects on cortical networks can also be studied with DBS discontinued just before the EEG recording in order to avoid any effect of the DBS artefact in the data analysis. This has been used in several longitudinal studies to look at the long-term plastic effects of DBS, with EEG recordings before DBS implantation and then at several time points during chronic DBS treatment (Broadway et al. 2012; Hilimire et al. 2015). A similar procedure has also been used to contrast a condition where DBS was switched OFF for 12 h (OFF state) and a condition where DBS was switched OFF just before the recording (ON state) after a long ON DBS period (Pierantozzi et al. 1999), assuming that the DBS post-effect period can last up to 3 h (Devos et al. 2002). These methods bypass the stimulation artifact issue but they remove the acute DBS effects on the brain. Indeed, for instance, the effect of DBS on SEPs faded away progressively in 1 h after switching the DBS OFF (Pierantozzi et al. 1999). Therefore, this method may lead to underestimations of DBS effects.
Beyond ERPs, task-related DBS effects can also be described from macroscopic neural oscillations using spectral analyses time-locked to stimulus presentation. Averaging across trials then gives a time frequency representation of the evoked activity. EEG power modulation by DBS was studied in PD patients (stimulated in the STN and/or GPi) on evoked beta power in an inhibition task (Swann et al. 2011), on alpha desynchronization and beta synchronization in a motor task (Devos and Defebvre 2006) and a passive rhythmic auditory stimulation task (Gulberti et al. 2015a). Time frequency maps were also computed in a working memory task in STN DBS PD patients (Selzler et al. 2013), in STN DBS OCD patients during a symptom provocative task (Figee et al. 2013) and in SCC DBS TRD patients (Sun et al. 2015). Then, by focusing on frequency bands of interest, the DBS modulation of the spectral power or cordance (sum of normalized absolute and relative theta power) can be studied in terms of amplitude and peak latency, as in PD patients in a motor task (Devos et al. 2004) or in TRD patients at rest (Broadway et al. 2012).
To study non-phase locked (induced) responses, a trial to trial analysis must be used, for instance, to show the DBS modulation of theta power regression with response time in a decision task (Cavanagh et al. 2011). The DBS effects on coherence spectrum (Silberstein et al. 2005), on phase coherence (Quraan et al. 2014) or on phase amplitude coupling (Sun et al. 2015) were also studied to assess differences in cortico-cortical coupling. To study neural communication between brain nodes, the resting state phase preservation index (quantifying the phase stability of an oscillation) was proposed as a potential tool of interest for quantifying the frontal theta activity in STN DBS OCD patients (Smolders et al. 2013).
Advances in therapy and neurophysiology from DBS-EEG studies
EEG thus offers many ways to study the mechanisms of action of DBS at the cortical level, which should enable to improve DBS methodology for optimal clinical outcomes and to increase our understanding of human neurophysiology.
Improving parameters setting for DBS therapy
Improving DBS efficacy is an important clinical research objective. Conclusions from EEG-DBS studies focused on the mapping of subcortico-cortical projections may enable to refine DBS targeting. For instance, in the STN, more ventral stimulation elicited stronger SCEP at 3 ms (Ashby et al. 2001), and more dorsal stimulation increased the amplitude of the medium latency of SCEP (peak around 23 ms) (MacKinnon et al. 2005). In pallidal DBS in primary generalized dystonia, contacts located more ventrally (corresponding to the clinically effective contacts) elicited larger medium latency SCEP (Tisch et al. 2008). However, even if cortical activation was tightly dependent on electrode position (Zumsteg et al. 2006), direct cortical activation could produce relatively similar evoked responses with different targets (such as the anterior and dorsomedial nuclei of the thalamus (Zumsteg et al. 2006)). Studies of SCEPs also showed some links between DBS parameters and cortical response patterns that could be related to clinical response. For example, monopolar DBS of the thalamus induced cortical responses four times higher in amplitude than bipolar DBS (Zumsteg et al. 2006). This amplitude modulation was highly dependent on electrode’s impedance. Early SCEP amplitude and frequency were related to clinical effect in tremor patients stimulated in the thalamus, which suggests that this SCEP component could be used to choose DBS parameters optimally (Walker et al. 2012a).
In studies correlating the clinical evolution with the EEG modulation by DBS, predictive biomarkers of treatment response could be outlined. Theses markers can in principle be assessed before implantation and thus bring information for surgical decision. For instance, in TRD where SCC DBS efficacy was shown to be highly heterogeneous across patients, low frontal theta cordance predicted greater clinical improvement after 24 weeks (Broadway et al. 2012). Because of its sensitivity to DBS parameters, EEG modulation by DBS can theoretically be used to help optimizing DBS parameters to reach best clinical outcome with least side effects. In PD patients, STN DBS induced a decrease of early visual evoked potentials which was proportional to the intensity of power increase (Jech et al. 2006) and the fronto-central P300 amplitude from an oddball auditory task was correlated with the stimulation voltage (Kovacs et al. 2008).
EEG biomarkers are particularly useful in pathologies where DBS effects on symptoms are not immediately observed, such as in psychiatric diseases. For instance, in TRD patients, frontal theta cordance increase at 4 weeks predicted stronger clinical benefit at 24 weeks (Broadway et al. 2012). Furthermore, the clinical efficacy of subgenual cingulate DBS in those patients was correlated with decreased right frontal gamma oscillations and increased left frontal theta-gamma coupling during a working memory task (Sun et al. 2015). In OCD patients, nucleus accumbens (NAc) DBS was suggested to improve the symptoms by inducing a reduction of frontal theta phase stability (Smolders et al. 2013). Measuring this index for several stimulation parameters could thus be a way to find optimal DBS parameters.
EEG DBS studies can also validate the use of DBS by comparing its effects on EEG markers with the effects of best medical treatments, or by comparing these effects with the same markers in healthy control groups. For instance, it has been shown that STN DBS in PD patients normalized the movement related desynchronization (Devos et al. 2004), the post-movement beta synchronization (Devos et al. 2003), the central beta cortico-cortical coupling at rest (Silberstein et al. 2005) and the beta modulation evoked by fast rhythmic auditory stimulation (fRAS) (Gulberti et al. 2015a) to near normal patterns and that these effects were similar to the ones induced by L-dopa treatment. Using fRAS, another study showed that the normalization of early ERP amplitudes was specific to STN DBS action and that dopaminergic treatment did not restore a normal pattern (Gulberti et al. 2015b). It was also shown in PD patients that STN and GPi DBS induced an increase of the SEPs (Pierantozzi et al. 1999) and partially restored movement-related spectral patterns similarly to dopaminergic drugs (Devos and Defebvre 2006). Moreover, STN DBS in PD patients normalized (compared to healthy subjects) the working memory N200 amplitude and latency (Selzler et al. 2013), the lateralized readiness potentials latency in a choice response task (Klostermann et al. 2010) and the fronto-central contingent negative variation amplitude (pre-stimulus negative potential shift) but did not change the P300 latency, which was shortened by levodopa treatment, in a Go/NoGo task (Gerschlager et al. 1999, 2001).
Finally, EEG studies of DBS cortical effects may be used to investigate stimulation side effects mechanisms. For instance, DBS induced increase of impulsive behavior in high conflict decision was shown to be related to decreased interactions between STN and mesial prefrontal cortex (Cavanagh et al. 2011). The functional connectivity between these two structures might thus be a good target in order to reduce impulsivity related to DBS therapy.
Understanding better functional neuroanatomy
EEG studies can be used to investigate the differential effects of DBS on brain dynamics. In longitudinal studies, modulation of different processes may require different DBS durations. This was shown in TRD patients in a self-referential task where SCC DBS induced after 1 month a reduction of the automatic processing of negative information (as shown by an effect on the early ERPs) and after 6 months a reduction of the controlled processing of this information (as shown by an effect on later ERPs) (Hilimire et al. 2015).
EEG-DBS studies can also improve our understanding of DBS mechanisms of action on brain networks by measuring the remote neurophysiological effects of DBS on various cortical regions. For example, STN DBS in PD was shown to increase cortical beta activity in a motor inhibition task, suggesting a DBS-induced improvement of information transfer from the basal ganglia to the cortex (Swann et al. 2011). The modulation of brain networks with DBS can also be used to synchronize DBS target activity at specific frequencies. By studying the modulation of SCEPs by dopamine in PD patients, STN-cortical networks were shown to resonate at around 20 Hz, depending on dopamine intake which could limit the induced amplitude increase at this frequency (Eusebio et al. 2009).
Assuming that early SCEPs are generated by cortical regions directly connected to the DBS target, inferences on the nature of the conducting elements can be made according to SCEP latencies. For instance, the SCEP occurring before 8 ms from STN stimulation were proposed to originate from antidromic activation of premotor and motor cortex connections to the STN (Ashby et al. 2001). Furthermore, the SCEP observed at 3 ms could be evoked with low stimulation power implying that it could originate from the activation of myelinated axons, which have low activation threshold (Ashby et al. 2001). This early SCEP component could be equivalent to the 1 ms latency component found in another study that was hypothesized to originate from non-synaptic antidromic activation (Walker et al. 2012b) due to its short latency and refractory period. The frontal early SCEP might be related to STN DBS clinical efficacy in PD whereas later SCEPs (after 20 ms), which represent indirect (polysynaptic) cortical activation, may implicate networks not strongly involved in the clinical improvement (MacKinnon et al. 2005).
The modulation of effective connectivity by DBS, either at the subcortico-cortical or at the cortico-cortical levels, can also be studied from EEG signals. In TRD patients responders to subgenual cingulate DBS, DBS was shown to normalize (compared to control subjects) resting state alpha and theta power asymmetry and long range functional connectivity between left fronto-central and right parietal regions (Quraan et al. 2014). In TRD patients, effective connectivity from the temporal pole to the fusiform gyrus was decreased with SCC DBS (Kibleur et al. 2017). In OCD patients, it was shown that subcortico-cortical effective connectivity was the most modulated connection by STN DBS in a motor inhibition task (Kibleur et al. 2016).
EEG-DBS methodology is an interesting approach to better understand the functional neuroanatomy of the human brain. EEG is safe and cheap and can be easily conducted in many clinical neurophysiology environments. It is appropriate for DBS studies but also for other kinds of electrical stimulation, such as vagus nerve stimulation (Corazzol et al. 2017; Clarençon et al. 2014; Kibleur n.d.). Furthermore, new advances in closed-loop DBS (Osorio et al. 2001; Broccard et al. 2014; Parastarfeizabadi and Kouzani 2017) aim at optimizing stimulation parameters using neuronal and/or physiological feedbacks to obtain the best effects with the lowest electrical consumption. The beneficial use of scalp EEG for closed-loop DBS still needs to be demonstrated.
It is thus important to keep continuing characterizing better the DBS footprints on cortical activity as recorded by EEG, even though EEG spatial resolution will remain intrinsically limited to few centimeters. Unfortunately, the post-processing of EEG data is complex and time-consuming. Important issues remain to be addressed, such as improving noise correction and testing the stability and repeatability of EEG markers of DBS mechanisms of action. In the future, it will be important to better homogenize the way the data are recorded and processed by using shared methods in open-source processing toolboxes. Another aspect to standardize such studies would be to better control important factors such as medication, wash-out duration and stimulation parameters. Finally, data sharing between international DBS centers is a meaningful way to quickly improve the statistical validity of the main findings.
The authors thank Prs Stéphan Chabardès, Mircea Polosan and Paul Krack for having facilitated the development of the EEG methodology in DBS patients at Grenoble University Hospital.
This work was funded by INSERM (OD) and “Agence Nationale pour la Recherche”; grant ANR-14-CE13–0030-01 PHYSIOBS (AK).
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
AK and OD wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Data plotted in the Figures were acquired as described in (Kibleur et al. 2016). The EEG research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Grenoble University Hospital (N° ID RCB: 2012-A00490–43). All the patients volunteered to participate in the study, gave written informed consent and received no financial support.
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Ashby P, et al. Potentials recorded at the scalp by stimulation near the human subthalamic nucleus. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:431–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Baker KB, Montgomery EB, Rezai AR, Burgess R, Lüders HO. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulus evoked potentials: physiological and therapeutic implications. Mov Disord. 2002;17:969–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Benabid AL, Chabardes S, Mitrofanis J, Pollak P. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:67–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Broadway JM, et al. Frontal theta cordance predicts 6-month antidepressant response to subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a pilot study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37:1764–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Broccard FD, et al. Closed-loop brain-machine-body interfaces for noninvasive rehabilitation of movement disorders. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42:1573–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cavanagh JF, et al. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation reverses mediofrontal influence over decision threshold. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14:1462–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Clarençon D, et al. Long term effects of low frequency (10 hz) vagus nerve stimulation on EEG and heart rate variability in Crohn's disease: a case report. Brain Stimul. 2014;7:914–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Conte A, et al. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation and somatosensory temporal discrimination in Parkinson's disease. Brain. 2010;133:2656–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Corazzol M, et al. Restoring consciousness with vagus nerve stimulation. Curr Biol. 2017;27:R994–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devos D, Defebvre L. Effect of deep brain stimulation and L-Dopa on electrocortical rhythms related to movement in Parkinson's disease. Prog Brain Res. 2006;159:331–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devos D, et al. Influence of internal globus pallidus stimulation on motor cortex activation pattern in Parkinson's disease. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;113:1110–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devos D, et al. Subthalamic stimulation influences postmovement cortical somatosensory processing in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;18:1884–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Devos D, et al. Subthalamic nucleus stimulation modulates motor cortex oscillatory activity in Parkinson's disease. Brain. 2004;127:408–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dostrovsky JO, Lozano AM. Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. Mov Disord. 2002;17(Suppl 3):S63–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eusebio A, et al. Resonance in subthalamo-cortical circuits in Parkinson's disease. Brain. 2009;132:2139–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Figee M, et al. Deep brain stimulation restores frontostriatal network activity in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16:386–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gerschlager W, et al. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation improves frontal cortex function in Parkinson's disease. An electrophysiological study of the contingent negative variation. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 12):2365–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gerschlager W, et al. Bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation does not improve prolonged P300 latencies in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. 2001;248:285–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gulberti A, et al. Predictive timing functions of cortical beta oscillations are impaired in Parkinson's disease and influenced by L-DOPA and deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. Neuroimage Clin. 2015a;9:436–49.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Gulberti A, et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation improves auditory sensory gating deficit in Parkinson's disease. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015b;126:565–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hilimire MR, et al. Effects of subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation on negative self-bias in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:185–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Insola A, Mazzone P, Valeriani M. Somatosensory evoked potential and clinical changes after electrode implant in basal ganglia of parkinsonian patients. Muscle Nerve. 2005;32:791–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jech R, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus affects resting EEG and visual evoked potentials in Parkinson's disease. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:1017–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kibleur, A. et al. Electroencephalographic correlates of low-frequency vagus nerve stimulation therapy for Crohn’s disease. In revision. Google Scholar
- Kibleur A, et al. Modulation of motor inhibition by subthalamic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2016;6:e922.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kibleur A, et al. Stimulation of subgenual cingulate area decreases limbic top-down effect on ventral visual stream: a DBS-EEG pilot study. NeuroImage. 2017;146:544–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Klostermann F, et al. Speed effects of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25:2762–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kovacs N, et al. The impact of bilateral subthalamic deep brain stimulation on long-latency event-related potentials. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2008;14:476–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- MacKinnon CD, et al. Stimulation through electrodes implanted near the subthalamic nucleus activates projections to motor areas of cerebral cortex in patients with Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;21:1394–402.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mayberg HS, et al. Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron. 2005;45:651–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McIntyre CC, Hahn PJ. Network perspectives on the mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. Neurobiol Dis. 2010;38:329–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moro E, et al. The impact on Parkinson's disease of electrical parameter settings in STN stimulation. Neurology. 2002;59:706–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. 2001;18:533–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Parastarfeizabadi M, Kouzani AZ. Advances in closed-loop deep brain stimulation devices. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Perlmutter JS, Mink JW. Deep brain stimulation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2006;29:229–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Pierantozzi M, et al. The effect of deep brain stimulation on the frontal N30 component of somatosensory evoked potentials in advanced Parkinson's disease patients. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110:1700–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Priori A, et al. Non-motor effects of deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease: preliminary physiological results. Neurol Sci. 2001;22:85–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Quraan MA, et al. EEG power asymmetry and functional connectivity as a marker of treatment effectiveness in DBS surgery for depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014;39:1270–81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Selzler K, Burack M, Bender R, Mapstone M. Neurophysiological correlates of motor and working memory performance following subthalamic nucleus stimulation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013;25:37–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Silberstein P, et al. Cortico-cortical coupling in Parkinson's disease and its modulation by therapy. Brain. 2005;128:1277–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smolders R, et al. Deep brain stimulation targeted at the nucleus accumbens decreases the potential for pathologic network communication. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74:e27–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sun Y, et al. A novel method for removal of deep brain stimulation artifact from electroencephalography. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;237:33–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sun Y, et al. Deep brain stimulation modulates gamma oscillations and theta-gamma coupling in treatment resistant depression. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:1033–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Swann N, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus alters the cortical profile of response inhibition in the beta frequency band: a scalp EEG study in Parkinson's disease. J Neurosci. 2011;31:5721–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tisch S, et al. Cortical evoked potentials from pallidal stimulation in patients with primary generalized dystonia. Mov Disord. 2008;23:265–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Walker HC, et al. Short latency activation of cortex by clinically effective thalamic brain stimulation for tremor. Mov Disord. 2012a;27:1404–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Walker HC, et al. Short latency activation of cortex during clinically effective subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2012b;27:864–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Yeung N, Bogacz R, Holroyd CB, Cohen JD. Detection of synchronized oscillations in the electroencephalogram: an evaluation of methods. Psychophysiology. 2004;41:822–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zumsteg D, Lozano AM, Wennberg RA. Rhythmic cortical EEG synchronization with low frequency stimulation of the anterior and medial thalamus for epilepsy. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:2272–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zumsteg D, Lozano AM, Wieser HG, Wennberg RA. Cortical activation with deep brain stimulation of the anterior thalamus for epilepsy. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:192–207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar