The impact of closed-loop intracortical stimulation on neural activity in brain-injured, anesthetized animals.
Activity-dependent stimulation
Firing
In vivo
Micro-electrode arrays
Spike
Stroke
Synchronization
Journal
Bioelectronic medicine
ISSN: 2332-8886
Titre abrégé: Bioelectron Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101660849
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2022
28 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
24
11
2021
accepted:
27
01
2022
entrez:
28
2
2022
pubmed:
1
3
2022
medline:
1
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acquired brain injuries, such as stroke, are a major cause of long-term disability worldwide. Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) can be used successfully to assist in guiding appropriate connections to restore lost sensorimotor integration. Activity-Dependent Stimulation (ADS) is a specific type of closed-loop ICMS that aims at coupling the activity of two different brain regions by stimulating one in response to activity in the other. Recently, ADS was used to effectively promote behavioral recovery in rodent models following a unilateral traumatic brain injury in the primary motor cortex. While behavioral benefits have been described, the neurophysiological changes in spared areas in response to this type of stimulation have not been fully characterized. Here we explored how single-unit spiking activity is impacted by a focal ischemic lesion and, subsequently, by an ADS treatment. Intracortical microelectrode arrays were implanted in the ipsilesional rostral forelimb area (RFA) to record spike activity and to trigger intracortical microstimulation in the primary somatosensory area (S1) of anaesthetized Long Evans rats. An ischemic injury was induced in the caudal forelimb area through microinjections of Endothelin-1. Activity from both RFA and S1 was recorded and analyzed off-line by evaluating possible changes, either induced by the lesion in the Control group or by stimulation in the ADS group. We found that the ischemic lesion in the motor area led to an overall increase in spike activity within RFA and a decrease in S1 with respect to the baseline condition. Subsequent treatment with ADS increased the firing rate in both RFA and S1. Post-stimulation spiking activity was significantly higher compared to pre-stimulation activity in the ADS animals versus non-stimulated controls. Moreover, stimulation promoted the generation of highly synchronized bursting patterns in both RFA and S1 only in the ADS group. This study describes the impact on single-unit activity in ipsilesional areas immediately following a cortical infarct and demonstrates that application of ADS is effective in altering this activity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acquired brain injuries, such as stroke, are a major cause of long-term disability worldwide. Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) can be used successfully to assist in guiding appropriate connections to restore lost sensorimotor integration. Activity-Dependent Stimulation (ADS) is a specific type of closed-loop ICMS that aims at coupling the activity of two different brain regions by stimulating one in response to activity in the other. Recently, ADS was used to effectively promote behavioral recovery in rodent models following a unilateral traumatic brain injury in the primary motor cortex. While behavioral benefits have been described, the neurophysiological changes in spared areas in response to this type of stimulation have not been fully characterized. Here we explored how single-unit spiking activity is impacted by a focal ischemic lesion and, subsequently, by an ADS treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
Intracortical microelectrode arrays were implanted in the ipsilesional rostral forelimb area (RFA) to record spike activity and to trigger intracortical microstimulation in the primary somatosensory area (S1) of anaesthetized Long Evans rats. An ischemic injury was induced in the caudal forelimb area through microinjections of Endothelin-1. Activity from both RFA and S1 was recorded and analyzed off-line by evaluating possible changes, either induced by the lesion in the Control group or by stimulation in the ADS group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that the ischemic lesion in the motor area led to an overall increase in spike activity within RFA and a decrease in S1 with respect to the baseline condition. Subsequent treatment with ADS increased the firing rate in both RFA and S1. Post-stimulation spiking activity was significantly higher compared to pre-stimulation activity in the ADS animals versus non-stimulated controls. Moreover, stimulation promoted the generation of highly synchronized bursting patterns in both RFA and S1 only in the ADS group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study describes the impact on single-unit activity in ipsilesional areas immediately following a cortical infarct and demonstrates that application of ADS is effective in altering this activity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35220964
doi: 10.1186/s42234-022-00086-y
pii: 10.1186/s42234-022-00086-y
pmc: PMC8883660
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
4Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : U54 HD090216
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS030853
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R03 HD094608
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Neural Comput. 2004 Aug;16(8):1661-87
pubmed: 15228749
Cereb Cortex. 2021 Oct 1;31(11):5042-5055
pubmed: 34165137
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000433
pubmed: 19593378
Behav Brain Res. 2006 May 15;169(2):206-11
pubmed: 16497394
J Neurosci Methods. 2009 Feb 15;177(1):241-9
pubmed: 18957306
Arch Neurol. 1976 Dec;33(12):813-20
pubmed: 999544
Neuroimage. 2014 Oct 1;99:388-401
pubmed: 24862071
Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2017 Feb;23(1, Cerebrovascular Disease):238-253
pubmed: 28157752
BMJ. 2020 Feb 13;368:l6983
pubmed: 32054610
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2017 Nov 7;19(12):59
pubmed: 29116473
Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;93(12):1707-16
pubmed: 23907078
J Neurosci. 2002 Jul 15;22(14):6062-70
pubmed: 12122067
J Comp Neurol. 2016 Oct 15;524(15):3104-23
pubmed: 27037503
Elife. 2015 Jan 03;4:
pubmed: 25556699
Stroke. 2010 Mar;41(3):544-9
pubmed: 20075346
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Dec;10(12):861-72
pubmed: 19888284
Nature. 2006 Nov 2;444(7115):56-60
pubmed: 17057705
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Oct;35(10):903-914
pubmed: 34510934
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):21177-82
pubmed: 24324155
Cereb Cortex. 2020 May 14;30(5):2879-2896
pubmed: 31832642
Neurol Res. 2003 Dec;25(8):789-93
pubmed: 14669520
Ann Neurol. 1986 Feb;19(2):105-11
pubmed: 2421636
Behav Brain Res. 2005 Nov 30;165(1):98-109
pubmed: 16105695
Nat Rev Neurol. 2011 Feb;7(2):76-85
pubmed: 21243015
Front Neurol. 2018 Apr 09;9:212
pubmed: 29686644