Variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies: reasons and results

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (NIBS), such as Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS), Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), are widely used to probe plasticity in the human motor cortex (M1). Although TBS, PAS and tDCS differ in terms of physiological mechanisms responsible for experimentally-induced cortical plasticity, they all share the ability to elicit long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) in M1. However, NIBS techniques are all affected by relevant variability in intra- and inter-subject responses. A growing number of factors contributing to NIBS variability have been recently identified and reported. In this review, we have readdressed the issue of variability in human NIBS studies. We have first briefly discussed the physiological mechanisms responsible for TBS, PAS and tDCS-induced cortical plasticity. Then, we have provided statistical measures of intra- and inter-subject variability, as calculated in previous studies. Finally, we have reported in detail known sources of variability by categorizing them into physiological, technical and statistical factors. Improving knowledge about sources of variability could lead to relevant advances in designing new tailored NIBS protocols in physiological and pathological conditions

A Preliminary Comparison of Motor Learning Across Different Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms Shows No Consistent Modulations

<p>Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been widely explored as a way to safely modulate brain activity and alter human performance for nearly three decades. Research using NIBS has grown exponentially within the last decade with promising results across a variety of clinical and healthy populations. However, recent work has shown high inter-individual variability and a lack of reproducibility of previous results. Here, we conducted a small preliminary study to explore the effects of three of the most commonly used excitatory NIBS paradigms over the primary motor cortex (M1) on motor learning (Sequential Visuomotor Isometric Pinch Force Tracking Task) and secondarily relate changes in motor learning to changes in cortical excitability (MEP amplitude and SICI). We compared anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), paired associative stimulation (PAS₂₅), and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), along with a sham tDCS control condition. Stimulation was applied prior to motor learning. Participants (n = 28) were randomized into one of the four groups and were trained on a skilled motor task. Motor learning was measured immediately after training (online), 1 day after training (consolidation), and 1 week after training (retention). We did not find consistent differential effects on motor learning or cortical excitability across groups. Within the boundaries of our small sample sizes, we then assessed effect sizes across the NIBS groups that could help power future studies. These results, which require replication with larger samples, are consistent with previous reports of small and variable effect sizes of these interventions on motor learning.</p

Paradoxical facilitation after depotentiation protocol can precede dyskinesia onset in early Parkinson’s disease

Loss of dopamine, a key modulator of synaptic signalling, and subsequent pulsatile non-physiological levodopa replacement is believed to underlie altered neuroplasticity in Parkinson's disease (PD). Animal models suggest that maladaptive plasticity (e.g. deficient depotentiation at corticostriatal synapses) is key in the development of levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID), a common complication following levodopa replacement in PD. Human studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols have shown similar depotentiation deficit in patients with LID. We hypothesized that subtle depotentiation deficits should precede LID if these deficits are mechanistically linked to LID onset. Moreover, patients on pulsatile levodopa-based therapy may show these changes earlier than those treated with levodopa-sparing strategies. We recruited 22 early non-dyskinetic PD patients (<5 years since diagnosis) and 12 age-matched healthy controls. We grouped patients into those on Levodopa-Based (n = 11) and Levodopa-Sparing therapies (n = 11). Patients were selected to obtain groups matched for age and disease severity. We used a theta-burst stimulation protocol to investigate potentiation and depotentiation in a single session. We report significant depotentiation deficits in the Levodopa-Based group, compared to both Levodopa-Sparing and Healthy Control groups. Potentiation and Depotentiation responses were similar between Levodopa-Sparing and Healthy Control groups. Although differences persist after accounting for potential confounds (e.g. levodopa-equivalent dose), these results may yet be caused by differences in disease severity and cumulative levodopa-equivalent dose as discussed in the text. In conclusion, we show for the first time that paradoxical facilitation in response to depotentiation protocols can occur in PD even prior to LID onset

Reduced Risk of Reoperations With Modern Deep Brain Stimulator Systems: Big Data Analysis From a United States Claims Database

Objective: There have been significant improvements in the design and manufacturing of deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems, but no study has considered the impact of modern systems on complications. We sought to compare the relative occurrence of reoperations after de novo implantation of modern and traditional DBS systems in patients with Parkinson\u27s disease (PD) or essential tremor (ET) in the United States. Design: Retrospective, contemporaneous cohort study. Setting: Multicenter data from the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative claims database between 2016 and 2018. Participants: This population-based sample consisted of 5,998 patients implanted with a DBS system, of which 3,869 patients had a de novo implant and primary diagnosis of PD or ET. Follow-up of 3 months was available for 3,810 patients, 12 months for 3,561 patients, and 24 months for 1,812 patients. Intervention: Implantation of a modern directional (MD) or traditional omnidirectional (TO) DBS system. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: We hypothesized that MD systems would impact complication rates. Reoperation rate was the primary outcome. Associated diagnoses, patient characteristics, and implanting center details served as covariates. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare rates of event-free survival and regression models were used to determine covariate influences. Results: Patients implanted with modern systems were 36% less likely to require reoperation, largely due to differences in acute reoperations and intracranial lead reoperations. Risk reduction persisted while accounting for practice differences and implanting center experience. Risk reduction was more pronounced in patients with PD. Conclusions: In the first multicenter analysis of device-related complications including modern DBS systems, we found that modern systems are associated with lower reoperation rates. This risk profile should be carefully considered during device selection for patients undergoing DBS for PD or ET. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate underlying causes

Stimulating at the right time: phase-specific deep brain stimulation.

SEE MOLL AND ENGEL DOI101093/AWW308 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Brain regions dynamically engage and disengage with one another to execute everyday actions from movement to decision making. Pathologies such as Parkinson's disease and tremor emerge when brain regions controlling movement cannot readily decouple, compromising motor function. Here, we propose a novel stimulation strategy that selectively regulates neural synchrony through phase-specific stimulation. We demonstrate for the first time the therapeutic potential of such a stimulation strategy for the treatment of patients with pathological tremor. Symptom suppression is achieved by delivering stimulation to the ventrolateral thalamus, timed according to the patient's tremor rhythm. Sustained locking of deep brain stimulation to a particular phase of tremor afforded clinically significant tremor relief (up to 87% tremor suppression) in selected patients with essential tremor despite delivering less than half the energy of conventional high frequency stimulation. Phase-specific stimulation efficacy depended on the resonant characteristics of the underlying tremor network. Selective regulation of neural synchrony through phase-locked stimulation has the potential to both increase the efficiency of therapy and to minimize stimulation-induced side effects

Subthalamic nucleus beta and gamma activity is modulated depending on the level of imagined grip force.

Motor imagery involves cortical networks similar to those activated by real movements, but the extent to which the basal ganglia are recruited is not yet clear. Gamma and beta oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus (STN) vary with the effort of sustained muscle activity. We recorded local field potentials in Parkinson's disease patients and investigated if similar changes can be observed during imagined gripping at three different 'forces'. We found that beta activity decreased significantly only for imagined grips at the two stronger force levels. Additionally, gamma power significantly scaled with increasing imagined force. Thus, in combination, these two spectral features can provide information about the intended force of an imaginary grip even in the absence of sensory feedback. Modulations in the two frequency bands during imaginary movement may explain the rehabilitating benefit of motor imagery to improve motor performance. The results also suggest that STN LFPs may provide useful information for brain-machine interfaces

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: Advances in Optogenetics, Ethical Issues Affecting DBS Research, Neuromodulatory Approaches for Depression, Adaptive Neurostimulation, and Emerging DBS Technologies

We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer’s disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank

Solutions for managing variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies

In the last three decades, a number of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) protocols, capable of assessing and modulating plasticity in the human motor cortex (M1), have been described. For almost as long, NIBS has delivered the tantalising prospect of non-invasive neuromodulation as a therapeutic intervention for neurorehabilitation, psychiatry, chronic pain and other disease states. Apart from modest effects in depression, this early promise has not been realised since the symptomatic improvements produced by NIBS are generally weak. One key factor explaining this lack of clinical translation concerns variability in response to NIBS. Several studies have demonstrated a number of physiological, technical and statistical factors accounting for intra- and inter-subject variability. However, solutions to overcome this problem are still under debate. In the present review, we have provided a detailed description of methodological and technical solutions to control known factors influencing variability. We have also suggested potential strategies to strengthen and stabilize NIBS-induced after-effects. Finally, we propose new possible outcome variables which better reflect intrinsic cortical activity, allowing a more sensitive measurement and valid interpretation of responses to NIBS

Solutions for managing variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies

[Abstrac]t:Introduction: In the last three decades, a number of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) protocols, capable of assessing and modulating plasticity in the human motor cortex (M1), have been described. For almost as long, NIBS has delivered the tantalising prospect of non-invasive neuromodulation as a therapeutic intervention for neurorehabilitation, psychiatry, chronic pain and other disease states. Apart from modest effects in depression, this early promise has not been realised since the symptomatic improvements produced by NIBS are generally weak. One key factor explaining this lack of clinical translation concerns variability in response to NIBS. Several studies have demonstrated a number of physiological, technical and statistical factors accounting for intra- and intersubject variability. However, solutions to overcome this problem are still under debate. In the present review, we have provided a detailed description of methodological and technical solutions to control known factors influencing variability. We have also suggested potential strategies to strengthen and stabilize NIBS-induced aftereffects. Finally, we propose new possible outcome variables which better reflect intrinsic cortical activity, allowing a more sensitive measurement and valid interpretation of responses to NIBS