Optogenetics and deep brain stimulation neurotechnologies

Brain neural network is composed of densely packed, intricately wired neurons whose activity patterns ultimately give rise to every behavior, thought, or emotion that we experience. Over the past decade, a novel neurotechnique, optogenetics that combines light and genetic methods to control or monitor neural activity patterns, has proven to be revolutionary in understanding the functional role of specific neural circuits. We here briefly describe recent advance in optogenetics and compare optogenetics with deep brain stimulation technology that holds the promise for treating many neurological and psychiatric disorders

Deep brain and cortical stimulation for epilepsy

Background : Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. In the last decades, interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). Objectives : To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of deep brain and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials. Search methods : We searched PubMed (6 August 2013), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (31 August 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7 of 12) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed. Selection criteria : Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation to sham stimulation, resective surgery or further treatment with antiepileptic drugs. Data collection and analysis : Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity. Main results : Ten RCTs comparing one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation to sham stimulation were identified. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in 4 cross-over trials without any washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after 1 to 3 months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi) focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi) focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (-17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -32.1 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (-24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to 6.0; high-quality evidence)) and hippocampal DBS (-28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 3% to 4% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 5% to 13% had soft tissue infections; no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation was well tolerated with few side effects but SUDEP rate should be closely monitored in the future (4 per 340 [= 11.8 per 1000] patient-years; literature: 2.2-10 per 1000 patient-years). The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality. Authors' conclusions : Only short term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi) focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi) focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. SUDEP rates require careful monitoring in patients undergoing responsive ictal onset zone stimulation. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments

Neurosurgery for Psychopaths? An Ethical Analysis

Recent developments in neuroscience have inspired proposals to perform deep brain stimulation on psychopathic detainees. We contend that these proposals cannot meet important ethical requirements that hold for both medical research and therapy. After providing a rough overview of key aspects of psychopathy and the prospects of tackling this condition via deep brain stimulation, we proceed to an ethical assessment of such measures, referring closely to the distinctive features of psychopathic personality, particularly the absence of subjective suffering and a lack of moral motivation. Scrutiny of these factors reveals that two essential bioethical criteria, individual medical benefit and voluntary informed consent, cannot be met in performing neurosurgical experiments or treatments on psychopathic inmates

Informed consent decision-making in deep brain stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has proved useful for several movement disorders (Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, dystonia), in which first and/or second line pharmacological treatments were inefficacious. Initial evidence of DBS efficacy exists for refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder, treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, and impulse control disorders. Ethical concerns have been raised about the use of an invasive surgical approach involving the central nervous system in patients with possible impairment in cognitive functioning and decision-making capacity. Most of the disorders in which DBS has been used might present with alterations in memory, attention, and executive functioning, which may have an impact on the mental capacity to give informed consent to neurosurgery. Depression, anxiety, and compulsivity are also common in DBS candidate disorders, and could also be associated with an impaired capacity to consent to treatment or clinical research. Despite these issues, there is limited empirical knowledge on the decision-making levels of these patients. The possible informed consent issues of DBS will be discussed by focusing on the specific treatable diseases

2008 Progress Report on Brain Research

Highlights new research on various disorders, nervous system injuries, neuroethics, neuroimmunology, pain, sense and body function, stem cells and neurogenesis, and thought and memory. Includes essays on arts and cognition and on deep brain stimulation

Functional MRI during hippocampal deep brain stimulation in the healthy rat brain

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is a promising treatment for neurological and psychiatric disorders. The mechanism of action and the effects of electrical fields administered to the brain by means of an electrode remain to be elucidated. The effects of DBS have been investigated primarily by electrophysiological and neurochemical studies, which lack the ability to investigate DBS-related responses on a whole-brain scale. Visualization of whole-brain effects of DBS requires functional imaging techniques such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which reflects changes in blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) responses throughout the entire brain volume. In order to visualize BOLD responses induced by DBS, we have developed an MRI-compatible electrode and an acquisition protocol to perform DBS during BOLD fMRI. In this study, we investigate whether DBS during fMRI is valuable to study local and whole-brain effects of hippocampal DBS and to investigate the changes induced by different stimulation intensities. Seven rats were stereotactically implanted with a custom-made MRI-compatible DBS-electrode in the right hippocampus. High frequency Poisson distributed stimulation was applied using a block-design paradigm. Data were processed by means of Independent Component Analysis. Clusters were considered significant when p-values were <0.05 after correction for multiple comparisons. Our data indicate that real-time hippocampal DBS evokes a bilateral BOLD response in hippocampal and other mesolimbic structures, depending on the applied stimulation intensity. We conclude that simultaneous DBS and fMRI can be used to detect local and whole-brain responses to circuit activation with different stimulation intensities, making this technique potentially powerful for exploration of cerebral changes in response to DBS for both preclinical and clinical DBS

Deep Brain Stimulation, Authenticity and Value

In this paper, we engage in dialogue with Jonathan Pugh, Hannah Maslen, and Julian Savulescu about how to best interpret the potential impacts of deep brain stimulation on the self. We consider whether ordinary people’s convictions about the true self should be interpreted in essentialist or existentialist ways. Like Pugh et al., we argue that it is useful to understand the notion of the true self as having both essentialist and existentialist components. We also consider two ideas from existentialist philosophy – Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas about “bad faith” and “ambiguity” – to argue that there can be value to patients in regarding themselves as having a certain amount of freedom to choose what aspects of themselves should be considered representative of their true selves. Lastly, we consider the case of an anorexia nervosa-patient who shifts between conflicting mind-sets. We argue that mind-sets in which it is easier for the patient and his or her family to share values can plausibly be considered to be more representative of the patient’s true self, if this promotes a well-functioning relationship between the patient and the family. However, we also argue that families are well-advised to give patients room to figure out what such shared values mean to them, since it can be alienating for patients if they feel that others try to impose values on them from the outside

Effect of neurostimulation on cognition and mood in refractory epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a common, debilitating neurological disorder characterized by recurrent seizures. Mood disorders and cognitive deficits are common comorbidities in epilepsy that, like seizures, profoundly influence quality of life and can be difficult to treat. For patients with refractory epilepsy who are not candidates for resection, neurostimulation, the electrical modulation of epileptogenic brain tissue, is an emerging treatment alternative. Several forms of neurostimulation are currently available, and therapy selection hinges on relative efficacy for seizure control and amelioration of neuropsychiatric comorbidities. Here, we review the current evidence for how invasive and noninvasive neurostimulation therapies affect mood and cognition in persons with epilepsy. Invasive therapies include vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). Noninvasive therapies include trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Overall, current evidence supports stable cognition and mood with all neurostimulation therapies, although there is some evidence that cognition and mood may improve with invasive forms of neurostimulation. More research is required to optimize the effects of neurostimulation for improvements in cognition and mood

Desynchronizing effect of high-frequency stimulation in a generic cortical network model

Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TCES) and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) are two different applications of electrical current to the brain used in different areas of medicine. Both have a similar frequency dependence of their efficiency, with the most pronounced effects around 100Hz. We apply superthreshold electrical stimulation, specifically depolarizing DC current, interrupted at different frequencies, to a simple model of a population of cortical neurons which uses phenomenological descriptions of neurons by Izhikevich and synaptic connections on a similar level of sophistication. With this model, we are able to reproduce the optimal desynchronization around 100Hz, as well as to predict the full frequency dependence of the efficiency of desynchronization, and thereby to give a possible explanation for the action mechanism of TCES.Comment: 9 pages, figs included. Accepted for publication in Cognitive Neurodynamic