Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease

Abstract Background Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment option for Parkinson’s disease patients when medication does not sufficiently manage their symptoms. DBS can be a highly effect therapy, but only after a time-consuming trial-and-error stimulation parameter adjustment process that is su...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kenneth H. Louie, Matthew N. Petrucci, Logan L. Grado, Chiahao Lu, Paul J. Tuite, Andrew G. Lamperski, Colum D. MacKinnon, Scott E. Cooper, Theoden I. Netoff
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-05-01
Series:Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00873-9
id doaj-e1bbcec16f25430d80c9a0307b25f036
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e1bbcec16f25430d80c9a0307b25f0362021-05-23T11:22:44ZengBMCJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation1743-00032021-05-0118111610.1186/s12984-021-00873-9Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s diseaseKenneth H. Louie0Matthew N. Petrucci1Logan L. Grado2Chiahao Lu3Paul J. Tuite4Andrew G. Lamperski5Colum D. MacKinnon6Scott E. Cooper7Theoden I. Netoff8Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Neurology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Neurology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Neurology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Neurology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Neurology, University of MinnesotaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of MinnesotaAbstract Background Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment option for Parkinson’s disease patients when medication does not sufficiently manage their symptoms. DBS can be a highly effect therapy, but only after a time-consuming trial-and-error stimulation parameter adjustment process that is susceptible to clinician bias. This trial-and-error process will be further prolonged with the introduction of segmented electrodes that are now commercially available. New approaches to optimizing a patient’s stimulation parameters, that can also handle the increasing complexity of new electrode and stimulator designs, is needed. Methods To improve DBS parameter programming, we explored two semi-automated optimization approaches: a Bayesian optimization (BayesOpt) algorithm to efficiently determine a patient’s optimal stimulation parameter for minimizing rigidity, and a probit Gaussian process (pGP) to assess patient’s preference. Quantified rigidity measurements were obtained using a robotic manipulandum in two participants over two visits. Rigidity was measured, in 5Hz increments, between 10–185Hz (total 30–36 frequencies) on the first visit and at eight BayesOpt algorithm-selected frequencies on the second visit. The participant was also asked their preference between the current and previous stimulation frequency. First, we compared the optimal frequency between visits with the participant’s preferred frequency. Next, we evaluated the efficiency of the BayesOpt algorithm, comparing it to random and equal interval selection of frequency. Results The BayesOpt algorithm estimated the optimal frequency to be the highest tolerable frequency, matching the optimal frequency found during the first visit. However, the participants’ pGP models indicate a preference at frequencies between 70–110 Hz. Here the stimulation frequency is lowest that achieves nearly maximal suppression of rigidity. BayesOpt was efficient, estimating the rigidity response curve to stimulation that was almost indistinguishable when compared to the longer brute force method. Conclusions These results provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility to use BayesOpt for determining the optimal frequency, while pGP patient’s preferences include more difficult to measure outcomes. Both novel approaches can shorten DBS programming and can be expanded to include multiple symptoms and parameters.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00873-9Bayesian optimizationDeep brain stimulationGaussian processProbitParkinson’s diseaseRigidity
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kenneth H. Louie
Matthew N. Petrucci
Logan L. Grado
Chiahao Lu
Paul J. Tuite
Andrew G. Lamperski
Colum D. MacKinnon
Scott E. Cooper
Theoden I. Netoff
spellingShingle Kenneth H. Louie
Matthew N. Petrucci
Logan L. Grado
Chiahao Lu
Paul J. Tuite
Andrew G. Lamperski
Colum D. MacKinnon
Scott E. Cooper
Theoden I. Netoff
Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Bayesian optimization
Deep brain stimulation
Gaussian process
Probit
Parkinson’s disease
Rigidity
author_facet Kenneth H. Louie
Matthew N. Petrucci
Logan L. Grado
Chiahao Lu
Paul J. Tuite
Andrew G. Lamperski
Colum D. MacKinnon
Scott E. Cooper
Theoden I. Netoff
author_sort Kenneth H. Louie
title Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
title_short Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
title_full Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
title_fullStr Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
title_full_unstemmed Semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in Parkinson’s disease
title_sort semi-automated approaches to optimize deep brain stimulation parameters in parkinson’s disease
publisher BMC
series Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
issn 1743-0003
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Abstract Background Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment option for Parkinson’s disease patients when medication does not sufficiently manage their symptoms. DBS can be a highly effect therapy, but only after a time-consuming trial-and-error stimulation parameter adjustment process that is susceptible to clinician bias. This trial-and-error process will be further prolonged with the introduction of segmented electrodes that are now commercially available. New approaches to optimizing a patient’s stimulation parameters, that can also handle the increasing complexity of new electrode and stimulator designs, is needed. Methods To improve DBS parameter programming, we explored two semi-automated optimization approaches: a Bayesian optimization (BayesOpt) algorithm to efficiently determine a patient’s optimal stimulation parameter for minimizing rigidity, and a probit Gaussian process (pGP) to assess patient’s preference. Quantified rigidity measurements were obtained using a robotic manipulandum in two participants over two visits. Rigidity was measured, in 5Hz increments, between 10–185Hz (total 30–36 frequencies) on the first visit and at eight BayesOpt algorithm-selected frequencies on the second visit. The participant was also asked their preference between the current and previous stimulation frequency. First, we compared the optimal frequency between visits with the participant’s preferred frequency. Next, we evaluated the efficiency of the BayesOpt algorithm, comparing it to random and equal interval selection of frequency. Results The BayesOpt algorithm estimated the optimal frequency to be the highest tolerable frequency, matching the optimal frequency found during the first visit. However, the participants’ pGP models indicate a preference at frequencies between 70–110 Hz. Here the stimulation frequency is lowest that achieves nearly maximal suppression of rigidity. BayesOpt was efficient, estimating the rigidity response curve to stimulation that was almost indistinguishable when compared to the longer brute force method. Conclusions These results provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility to use BayesOpt for determining the optimal frequency, while pGP patient’s preferences include more difficult to measure outcomes. Both novel approaches can shorten DBS programming and can be expanded to include multiple symptoms and parameters.
topic Bayesian optimization
Deep brain stimulation
Gaussian process
Probit
Parkinson’s disease
Rigidity
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00873-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kennethhlouie semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT matthewnpetrucci semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT loganlgrado semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT chiahaolu semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT pauljtuite semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT andrewglamperski semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT columdmackinnon semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT scottecooper semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
AT theodeninetoff semiautomatedapproachestooptimizedeepbrainstimulationparametersinparkinsonsdisease
_version_ 1721429896159297536