The sensitivity of ECG contamination to surgical implantation site in brain computer interfaces.
Artifacts
Brain computer interface
Deep brain stimulation
Neuromodulation
Oscillations
Journal
Brain stimulation
ISSN: 1876-4754
Titre abrégé: Brain Stimul
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101465726
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
06
04
2021
revised:
05
08
2021
accepted:
19
08
2021
pubmed:
25
8
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
24
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Brain sensing devices are approved today for Parkinson's, essential tremor, and epilepsy therapies. Clinical decisions for implants are often influenced by the premise that patients will benefit from using sensing technology. However, artifacts, such as ECG contamination, can render such treatments unreliable. Therefore, clinicians need to understand how surgical decisions may affect artifact probability. Investigate neural signal contamination with ECG activity in sensing enabled neurostimulation systems, and in particular clinical choices such as implant location that impact signal fidelity. Electric field modeling and empirical signals from 85 patients were used to investigate the relationship between implant location and ECG contamination. The impact on neural recordings depends on the difference between ECG signal and noise floor of the electrophysiological recording. Empirically, we demonstrate that severe ECG contamination was more than 3.2x higher in left-sided subclavicular implants (48.3%), when compared to right-sided implants (15.3%). Cranial implants did not show ECG contamination. Given the relative frequency of corrupted neural signals, we conclude that implant location will impact the ability of brain sensing devices to be used for "closed-loop" algorithms. Clinical adjustments such as implant location can significantly affect signal integrity and need consideration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Brain sensing devices are approved today for Parkinson's, essential tremor, and epilepsy therapies. Clinical decisions for implants are often influenced by the premise that patients will benefit from using sensing technology. However, artifacts, such as ECG contamination, can render such treatments unreliable. Therefore, clinicians need to understand how surgical decisions may affect artifact probability.
OBJECTIVES
Investigate neural signal contamination with ECG activity in sensing enabled neurostimulation systems, and in particular clinical choices such as implant location that impact signal fidelity.
METHODS
Electric field modeling and empirical signals from 85 patients were used to investigate the relationship between implant location and ECG contamination.
RESULTS
The impact on neural recordings depends on the difference between ECG signal and noise floor of the electrophysiological recording. Empirically, we demonstrate that severe ECG contamination was more than 3.2x higher in left-sided subclavicular implants (48.3%), when compared to right-sided implants (15.3%). Cranial implants did not show ECG contamination.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the relative frequency of corrupted neural signals, we conclude that implant location will impact the ability of brain sensing devices to be used for "closed-loop" algorithms. Clinical adjustments such as implant location can significantly affect signal integrity and need consideration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34428554
pii: S1935-861X(21)00218-7
doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.016
pmc: PMC8460992
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1301-1306Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : K23 NS099380
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00003/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12024/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Mov Disord. 2017 Jun;32(6):810-819
pubmed: 28597557
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Nov;128(11):2286-2291
pubmed: 29031219
Sci Transl Med. 2020 Dec 2;12(572):
pubmed: 33268512
Brain. 2021 Mar 3;144(2):473-486
pubmed: 33301569
Conf Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern. 2020 Oct;2020:1498-1504
pubmed: 33479560
J Neural Eng. 2018 Aug;15(4):046006
pubmed: 29741160
Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Apr;23(7):1956-60
pubmed: 16623853
Ann Neurol. 2018 May;83(5):1027-1031
pubmed: 29727475
J Neural Eng. 2019 Feb;16(1):016004
pubmed: 30444218
Ann Neurol. 2018 Oct;84(4):505-514
pubmed: 30112767
Ann Neurol. 2013 Sep;74(3):449-57
pubmed: 23852650
Clin Cardiol. 1992 Oct;15(10):752-8
pubmed: 1395186
J Neurosurg. 2018 Aug;129(2):308-314
pubmed: 28960154
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1984 Dec;31(12):770-8
pubmed: 6396202
Mov Disord. 2016 Nov;31(11):1748-1751
pubmed: 27548068
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 May;82(5):569-73
pubmed: 20935326
Mov Disord. 2017 Jan;32(1):11-19
pubmed: 27400763
Nat Rev Neurol. 2021 Feb;17(2):75-87
pubmed: 33244188
J Neurosci. 2008 Jun 11;28(24):6165-73
pubmed: 18550758
Exp Neurol. 2021 Nov;345:113825
pubmed: 34331900
Nat Biotechnol. 2021 Sep;39(9):1078-1085
pubmed: 33941932
Neuron. 2011 Oct 20;72(2):370-84
pubmed: 22017994
Neurobiol Dis. 2018 Dec;120:107-117
pubmed: 30196050
Front Neurosci. 2021 Apr 12;15:637274
pubmed: 33912002
Brain Stimul. 2019 Jul - Aug;12(4):858-867
pubmed: 30827864
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Sep;37(9):1024-1033
pubmed: 31477926
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 1;76(7):800-808
pubmed: 30985902
Ann Neurol. 2017 Dec;82(6):912-924
pubmed: 29130551
Neurology. 2018 Mar 13;90(11):e971-e976
pubmed: 29444973
Mov Disord. 2012 Jul;27(8):1063-6
pubmed: 22700436
Neurotherapeutics. 2019 Jan;16(1):105-118
pubmed: 30607748
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012 Jul;20(4):410-21
pubmed: 22275720
Mol Psychiatry. 2014 Nov;19(11):1186-92
pubmed: 24514569