Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 143 references

Neurophysiologically Realistic Environment for Comparing Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Algorithms in Parkinson Disease

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims to provide the first neurophysiologically realistic benchmark for adaptive deep brain stimulation, a Kuramoto-oscillator environment with 15 previously ignored physiological features, and uses it to compare RL…

desk verdict A genuinely useful, well-built aDBS simulation testbed whose 'realistic' label is over-sold and whose headline algorithm ranking is not yet tested for robustness. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09624 v1 pith:LA6PMXKH submitted 2025-04-26 q-bio.NC cs.AI

Ekaterina Kuzmina , Dmitrii Kriukov , Mikhail Lebedev , Dmitry V. Dylov This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.AI
keywords deepbrainstimulationParkinson'sdiseasereinforcementlearningKuramotomodelbetaoscillationslocalfieldpotentialssimulationenvironmentadaptiveDBS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to give the adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) community a standardized, computationally efficient simulation in which different control algorithms, especially reinforcement learning agents, can be trained and compared before clinical testing. It argues that existing synthetic Parkinson's disease models omit key real-world complications and introduces DBS-Gym, a configurable Kuramoto-oscillator environment that recreates beta-band LFP features across bandwidth, spatial, and temporal domains. As a demonstration, the authors benchmark high-frequency DBS, PI/PID controllers, and five reinforcement learning algorithms across three difficulty levels, using the trade-off between beta power suppression and stimulation energy as the evaluation metric. A sympathetic reader would care because the field lacks a common training ground; if the environment's realism holds, RL agents pre-trained here could be fine-tuned on patient-specific data.

What carries the argument

The central object is a spatial Kuramoto model of N phase oscillators (default 512 on an 8×8×8 grid) with phase dynamics dθ_n/dt = ω_n + (K/N) Σ_m W_mn sin(θ_m − θ_n) + V(θ_n) A, where W_mn = cos(α_mn) encodes distance-dependent coupling, V(θ_n) = G(α_n,el) · PRC(θ_n) couples electrode stimulation, and the LFP is a conductance-weighted average of cos(θ_n). Around this core, the environment layers three feature groups—bandwidth (natural frequency distribution producing low and high beta), spatial (beta locus, partial observability, directional multi-contact electrodes), and temporal (STDP-based neural drift, electrode drift, encapsulation, burst modulation)—and exposes them as configurable parameters in a Gymnasium-style RL environment with sliding observation windows, a multi-contact action space, and reward functions trading beta power against energy.

What would settle it

Record simultaneous subthalamic LFP from a cohort of Parkinson's patients under continuous and adaptive DBS, feed the same recorded signals or their statistics into DBS-Gym with the same electrode geometry, and check whether the simulated LFP responses, beta-burst statistics, and PSD changes match the patient data; a systematic mismatch would show that the benchmark's algorithm rankings need not transfer to clinical reality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper introduces DBS-Gym as the first neurophysiologically realistic benchmark for adaptive deep brain stimulation, integrating 15 previously dismissed physiological attributes across spatial, temporal, and bandwidth feature groups, all modeled through Kuramoto phase oscillators on a 3D grid with distance-dependent coupling and electrode kernels. The environment reproduces PD-relevant LFP phenomena including beta bursting, partial observability, electrode drift, neural drift, and electrode encapsulation, and it supports configurable complexity levels (Env0, Env1, Env2) that isolate each feature group. Using this environment, the authors evaluate PI/PID and RL algorithms and report that Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) maintains the best balance of beta suppression and energy across all levels, while offline methods and DDPG degrade sharply under temporal drift.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's realism rests on the unverified assumption that the manually chosen Kuramoto-oscillator dynamics and drift schedules reproduce the patient-relevant phenomena that actually determine how well an adaptive DBS algorithm performs in a living brain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reinforcement learning agents can be pre-trained in the simulation and later fine-tuned on patient-specific data, addressing the scarcity of invasive aDBS training data.
  • The environment provides a standardized benchmark for comparing future aDBS algorithms on a common beta-suppression-versus-energy trade-off, which the authors argue no previous synthetic model unified.
  • The three-tiered complexity (Env0, Env1, Env2) allows researchers to isolate which feature domains (bandwidth, spatial, temporal) break which controllers, guiding algorithm design.
  • Stochastic-policy algorithms like SAC appear more robust to electrode drift and encapsulation than deterministic or offline policies, suggesting a design guideline for clinically deployed controllers.
  • Because the features are configurable, the testbed can be adapted to other stimulation pulse shapes, frequency bands, or neurological disorders without rebuilding the environment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the environment's realism transfers to the clinic, this benchmark could make RL-aDBS studies comparable across labs; a natural extension would be a public leaderboard with fixed seeds and standardized hyperparameters.
  • The only external validation—matching beta burst durations from one patient cohort—is narrow; a stronger test would compare simulated PSD changes under real cDBS recordings, which the authors do not perform.
  • Since all parameters are hand-set, the benchmark's difficulty is somewhat arbitrary; one could invert the framework to tune environment parameters against real patient LFP datasets and thereby calibrate 'realism' quantitatively.
  • The paper's suppression-stability task introduces a new evaluation axis—control resilience to progressive degradation—that could generalize to other implantable closed-loop brain-computer interfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DBS-Gym, a configurable simulation environment for adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) based on a spatially embedded Kuramoto oscillator network. The environment implements three groups of features—bandwidth (beta sub-bands, nonstationary PSD), spatial (beta locus geometry, partial observability, directional/multi-contact electrodes), and temporal (neural and electrode drift, encapsulation, beta-burst modulation)—organized into three environment levels of increasing complexity. The authors benchmark classic HF-DBS, random stimulation, PI/PID controllers, and five RL algorithms (PPO, SAC, DDPG, IQL, CQL-SAC) under three reward functions, reporting beta-power suppression and energy consumption. The main empirical findings are that SAC performs consistently well, IQL performs comparably under the first reward, DDPG degrades under temporal drift, and CQL-SAC fails to learn an effective policy. The paper claims to be the first neurophysiologically realistic benchmark for comparing aDBS algorithms.

Significance. The environment is a potentially valuable open-source contribution: it is computationally efficient (JAX, 512 oscillators), integrates with Gymnasium/Stable-Baselines3, and covers a wider set of features than previous synthetic models (Figure 1F). The algorithm ranking is emergent rather than fitted to a desired outcome, and the paper ships code and uses standard reproducible RL implementations. If the configuration is made fully explicit and the ranking is shown to be robust to parameter variation, DBS-Gym could serve as a useful standard testbed for aDBS controller development. However, the 'neurophysiologically realistic' claim currently rests on a single visual burst-duration comparison, and the benchmark's usefulness for algorithm comparison hinges on the parameter sensitivity analysis that is not yet provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.4, Table A1, Appendix A.5.2] The environment's core parameters are not fully specified, and the reported configuration is internally inconsistent. The coupling constant K in Eq. (1) is stated to control beta bursting (§3.2.3) but is not listed in Table A1 nor given in Appendix A.5.2. 'Beta locus size, %' is 0.55 in Table A1, while Appendix A.5.2 says the locus was about 25% of neurons. In addition, §3.4 states the HF-DBS baseline uses a 90-microsecond pulse, but Table A1 sets 'Electrode stimulation duration' to 0.0015 s (1.5 ms), a 16-fold difference that changes the energy metric and the stimulation effect. These discrepancies make the exact training and evaluation setup unreproducible from the paper; please report K, reconcile the locus size, and correct or justify the pulse duration.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 1 and A2] The headline ranking (SAC > IQL/DDPG, CQL-SAC failure) is demonstrated at a single hand-set parameter point. No sensitivity analysis over K, beta-locus geometry, electrode distance, drift rates, or reward weights is presented. Because the environment's dynamics depend strongly on these choices (§3.2, Eq. (1)), the reported ranking may be an artifact of one configuration. Please provide a sensitivity sweep over at least K, beta-locus size and position, and electrode drift/encapsulation rates, and report how the algorithm ordering changes or, if it does not, the range over which it is stable.
  3. [§1, §3.2, Figure 1D] The central claim of 'neurophysiologically realistic' is supported only by a visual comparison of simulated beta burst durations with one patient cohort (Figure 1D); no quantitative goodness-of-fit is reported, and the other modeled attributes are justified by references rather than validated against experimental recordings. The limitations section (Appendix A.2) itself concedes that tissue volume activation, electrode capacitance, and other factors are not fully incorporated. Please add quantitative agreement measures (e.g., burst-duration distribution statistics, PSD peak location and width) and, if such validation is not yet available, soften the realism claim to 'mechanistically motivated' in the abstract and §1.
  4. [§4.1.2, §4.2] The evaluation protocol trains and evaluates each algorithm on the same environment parameter distributions, so the reported performance differences reflect interpolation within one parameter regime rather than generalization across plausible clinical conditions. Even though Env2 includes drift events during evaluation, the underlying parameters remain in the training regime. For a benchmark whose purpose is to compare aDBS controllers for deployment, please include at least one held-out parameter configuration or an explicit out-of-distribution test to substantiate the claim that the ranking is robust and would transfer to unseen patient conditions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table A2, Figure 3] Units and labels are inconsistent: Table A2 mixes '%' and 'mV^2' for beta power across reward columns, and Figure 3 axis labels contain 'mV/two.numerator' and 'mV/two.numerator/Hz', evidently LaTeX artifacts. Please unify units and fix the axis labels.
  2. [Eq. (7), Appendix A.6.4] The discrete-time PID update uses t-1 for the integral and derivative terms; please clarify the discretization and report the tuned gains Kp, Ki, Kd for the PI/PID controllers, which are not listed despite being tuned with Optuna.
  3. [Table A1] The row 'Directed stimulation TURN ON - - -' is ambiguous: the main text says non-directional single-contact stimulation was used, so please replace the entries with explicit True/False values for each environment level.
  4. [§3.3.1, Table A1] The observation window is described as a user-defined hyperparameter with a 1.2-second recommendation in §3.3.1, while Table A1 lists 'Observation window duration' as 1.17 s; please align these values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark outcomes are emergent and no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain: DBS-Gym is a constructed Kuramoto-based simulation environment, and the paper does not derive a physiological result from a fitted parameter. The benchmark rankings (Table 1, Fig. 3) are emergent outputs of running published RL/PID controllers in this environment, so they are not equivalent to the environment's inputs by construction. The realism claim rests on manually chosen coefficients (Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3, Table A1) and on one external visual comparison of beta-burst durations against [114] (Fig. 1D); the text says adjusting K 'controls burst dynamics' but never states K was fitted to that patient distribution, and no equation equates the validation metric to a fitted parameter. The reward r2 (Eq. 5) is attributed to the authors' prior work [64], but the headline comparison uses r1 (Eq. 4); the 'only one prior RL framework' sentence in Section 5 is a novelty assertion, not a load-bearing theorem, and the environment and algorithmic results stand independently of it. Appendix A.2 candidly lists unmodeled factors, and Table A1's omission of K plus the 55% vs 25% beta-locus discrepancy are reproducibility and validity concerns, not circular reductions. No step makes a 'prediction' reduce to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on many hand-set parameters and domain assumptions. The environment is a construction, not a derivation; the realism claim is supported mainly by qualitative similarity of beta bursts to one patient study.

free parameters (7)
  • Coupling constant K = not reported in text (set in code)
    Controls neuron-neuron coupling strength and burst dynamics; chosen by hand to produce synchronized beta oscillations; its value is omitted from Table A1.
  • Natural frequency distribution (mean, sd, band layout) = mean 17 Hz, sd 1 Hz; plus low band 4 to 8 Hz
    Sampled from a 'manually designed distribution' (Figure A3A) to produce a pronounced low-beta peak; defining the pathological PSD is central to the claimed realism.
  • Beta locus size and position = 55% of neurons; center [4,4,4] (Env0)
    The spatial extent of the pathological oscillation source is chosen by hand and changes with environment level; directly affects observation and stimulation difficulty.
  • Electrode kernel scaling and distance scaling = 0.1 for both
    Triangular/spherical conductance kernels use scaling factors that determine partial observability and stimulation reach; values are arbitrarily set.
  • Temporal drift rates (electrode shift, encapsulation, neural drift) = shift every 7 +/- 2 episodes; 2% encapsulation per event; 2% frequency drift per episode (training Env2)
    Schedules for non-stationarity are manually defined in Appendix A.6.2; they define the difficulty of the temporal environment.
  • Reward weights lambda and kappa = lambda_r1=1e4, kappa_r1=0.01; lambda_r2=1000, kappa_r2=0.01; lambda_r3=1e4, kappa_r3=0.1
    Bicriteria weights balance beta suppression and energy cost; these shape the learned policies and are not derived from clinical outcomes.
  • Observation window and pulse timing = 1.17 s observation window; 0.0015 s stimulation, 0.0075 s pause
    Chosen to mimic practice but not validated; they affect observability and the action frequency.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A Kuramoto phase-oscillator network with cosine spatial coupling is an adequate proxy for basal ganglia / STN LFP dynamics in PD.
    Section 3.1 adopts the Kuramoto model for computational efficiency; the paper cites literature that it is widely used, but the specific 512-neuron, 8x8x8 grid setup is not validated against patient recordings.
  • domain assumption Beta-band power suppression (13 to 21 Hz) is the appropriate therapeutic objective and feedback signal for aDBS controllers.
    Section 3.2 and 3.3 define beta low band as the pathological source; this follows clinical literature but is a modeling choice, not something the paper derives.
  • domain assumption LFP observation as N^-1 sum cos(theta_n) G(alpha_{n,el}) is a valid measurement model.
    Eq. (3) in Section 3.3.1; the conductance weighting is a stylized representation of partial observability and is not calibrated to electrode physics.
  • domain assumption Simulated non-stationarities (electrode shifts, encapsulation, frequency drift) capture the real-world processes that matter for aDBS robustness.
    Section 3.2.3 and Appendix A.3.3 justify each feature with references, but the stochastic generators are hand-set and not compared to longitudinal patient data.
  • ad hoc to paper The evaluation protocol (training and testing on the same environment parameters) is sufficient to rank aDBS controllers.
    Section 4.1.2; no cross-dataset or parameter-perturbation study is run, so the rankings may not generalize to untested parameter regimes.
  • standard math Numerical integration with RK45 and the chosen step size yields accurate-enough trajectories for RL training.
    Section 4.1.1; standard practice, unproblematic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neurophysiologically Realistic Environment for Comparing Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Algorithms in Parkinson Disease." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LA6PMXKH

@misc{pith2026250509624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neurophysiologically Realistic Environment for Comparing Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Algorithms in Parkinson Disease},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LA6PMXKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09624}
}
read the original abstract

Adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) has emerged as a promising treatment for Parkinson disease (PD). In aDBS, a surgically placed electrode sends dynamically altered stimuli to the brain based on neurophysiological feedback: an invasive gadget that limits the amount of data one could collect for optimizing the control offline. As a consequence, a plethora of synthetic models of PD and those of the control algorithms have been proposed. Herein, we introduce the first neurophysiologically realistic benchmark for comparing said models. Specifically, our methodology covers not only conventional basal ganglia circuit dynamics and pathological oscillations, but also captures 15 previously dismissed physiological attributes, such as signal instabilities and noise, neural drift, electrode conductance changes and individual variability - all modeled as spatially distributed and temporally registered features via beta-band activity in the brain and a feedback. Furthermore, we purposely built our framework as a structured environment for training and evaluating deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms, opening new possibilities for optimizing aDBS control strategies and inviting the machine learning community to contribute to the emerging field of intelligent neurostimulation interfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed Environment. A) A closed-loop electrical brain stimulation system measures neural activity through local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial and phase dynamics of LFP for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of selected DBS Algorithms in proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Juan A Acebrón, Luis L Bonilla, Conrad J Pérez Vicente, Félix Ritort, and Renato Spigler. 2005. The Kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena. Reviews of modern physics 77, 1 (2005), 137–185

    2005

  2. [2]

    Jason Adair, Alexander Brownlee, Fabio Daolio, and Gabriela Ochoa. 2018. Evolv- ing training sets for improved transfer learning in brain computer interfaces. In Machine Learning, Optimization, and Big Data: Third International Confer- ence, MOD 2017, Volterra, Italy, September 14–17, 2017, Revised Selected Papers 3 . Springer, 186–197

    2018

  3. [3]

    Harsh Agarwal and Heena Rathore. 2023. Novel Reinforcement Learning Algo- rithm for Suppressing Synchronization in Closed Loop Deep Brain Stimulators. In 2023 11th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) . IEEE, 1–5

    2023

  4. [4]

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization frame- work. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowl- edge discovery & data mining . 2623–2631

    2019

  5. [5]

    Joshua E Aman, Luke A Johnson, David Escobar Sanabria, Jing Wang, Remi Patriat, Meghan Hill, Ethan Marshall, Colum D MacKinnon, Scott E Cooper, Lauren E Schrock, et al. 2020. Directional deep brain stimulation leads reveal spa- tially distinct oscillatory activity in the globus pallidus internus of Parkinson’s disease patients. Neurobiology of disease 139...

    2020

  6. [6]

    RW Anderson, YM Kehnemouyi, RS Neuville, KB Wilkins, CM Anidi, MN Petrucci, JE Parker, A Velisar, and HM Brontë-Stewart. 2020. A novel method for calculating beta band burst durations in Parkinson’s disease using a physio- logical baseline. Journal of neuroscience methods 343 (2020), 108811

    2020

  7. [7]

    Ramin Azodi-Avval and Alireza Gharabaghi. 2015. Phase-dependent modulation as a novel approach for therapeutic brain stimulation.Frontiers in computational neuroscience 9 (2015), 26

    2015

  8. [8]

    Fatemeh Bahadori-Jahromi, Sina Salehi, Mojtaba Madadi Asl, and Alireza Val- izadeh. 2023. Efficient suppression of parkinsonian beta oscillations in a closed- loop model of deep brain stimulation with amplitude modulation. Frontiers in human neuroscience 16 (2023), 1013155

    2023

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    Roberta Balestrino and AHV Schapira. 2020. Parkinson disease. European journal of neurology 27, 1 (2020), 27–42

    2020

  2. [10]

    Thomas S Binns, Richard M Köhler, Jonathan Vanhoecke, Meera Chikermane, Moritz Gerster, Timon Merk, Franziska Pellegrini, Johannes L Busch, Jeroen GV Habets, Allesia Cavallo, et al. 2024. Shared pathway-specific network mecha- nisms of dopamine and deep brain stimulation for t...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Merrill J Birdno, Alexis M Kuncel, Alan D Dorval, Dennis A Turner, Robert E Gross, and Warren M Grill. 2012. Stimulus features underlying reduced tremor suppression with temporally patterned deep brain stimulation. Journal of neurophysiology 107, 1 (2012), 364–383

    2012

  4. [12]

    Bastiaan R Bloem, Michael S Okun, and Christine Klein. 2021. Parkinson’s disease. The Lancet 397, 10291 (2021), 2284–2303

    2021

  5. [13]

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang. 2018. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs. http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  6. [14]

    Michael Breakspear, Stewart Heitmann, and Andreas Daffertshofer. 2010. Gen- erative models of cortical oscillations: neurobiological implications of the Ku- ramoto model. Frontiers in human neuroscience 4 (2010), 190

    2010

  7. [15]

    Christopher R Butson, Scott E Cooper, Jaimie M Henderson, Barbara Wolgamuth, and Cameron C McIntyre. 2011. Probabilistic analysis of activation volumes generated during deep brain stimulation. Neuroimage 54, 3 (2011), 2096–2104

    2011

  8. [16]

    Aine Byrne, Matthew J Brookes, and Stephen Coombes. 2017. A mean field model for movement induced changes in the beta rhythm. Journal of computational neuroscience 43 (2017), 143–158

    2017

  9. [17]

    Hayriye Cagnan, Timothy Denison, Cameron McIntyre, and Peter Brown. 2019. Emerging technologies for improved deep brain stimulation. Nature biotechnol- ogy 37, 9 (2019), 1024–1033

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hayriye Cagnan, Hil GE Meijer, Stephan A Van Gils, Martin Krupa, Tjitske Heida, Michelle Rudolph, Wytse J Wadman, and Hubert CF Martens. 2009. Frequency-selectivity of a thalamocortical relay neuron during Parkinson’s disease and deep brain stimulation: a computational study. ...

    2009

  11. [19]

    Andrew Campbell and Chengyuan Wu. 2018. Chronically implanted intracranial electrodes: tissue reaction and electrical changes. Micromachines 9, 9 (2018), 430

    2018

  12. [20]

    Chunyan Cao, Dianyou Li, Shikun Zhan, Chencheng Zhang, Bomin Sun, and Vladimir Litvak. 2020. L-dopa treatment increases oscillatory power in the motor cortex of Parkinson’s disease patients. NeuroImage: Clinical 26 (2020), 102255

    2020

  13. [21]

    Kristen Carlson, Jay L Shils, Sahil Patel, Longzhi Mei, and Jeffrey Arle. 2021. Computational Modelling of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease: A Critical Review. OBM Neurobiology 5, 2 (2021), 1–31

    2021

  14. [22]

    Michael Cassidy, Paolo Mazzone, Antonio Oliviero, Angelo Insola, Pietro Tonali, Vincenzo Di Lazzaro, and Peter Brown. 2002. Movement-related changes in synchronization in the human basal ganglia. Brain 125, 6 (2002), 1235–1246

    2002

  15. [23]

    Frédéric Chapelle, Lucie Manciet, Bruno Pereira, Anna Sontheimer, Jérôme Coste, Youssef El Ouadih, Ruxandra Cimpeanu, Dimitri Gouot, Yuri Lapusta, Béa- trice Claise, et al. 2021. Early deformation of deep brain stimulation electrodes following surgical implantation: intracrani...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Po-Lin Chen, Yi-Chieh Chen, Po-Hsun Tu, Tzu-Chi Liu, Min-Chi Chen, Hau- Tieng Wu, Mun-Chun Yeap, Chih-Hua Yeh, Chin-Song Lu, and Chiung-Chu Chen. 2022. Subthalamic high-beta oscillation informs the outcome of deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Frontie...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Ziqin Chen, Timothy Anglea, Yuanzhao Zhang, and Yongqiang Wang. 2023. Op- timal synchronization in pulse-coupled oscillator networks using reinforcement learning. PNAS nexus 2, 4 (2023), pgad102

    2023

  18. [26]

    David Cumin and CP2296240 Unsworth. 2007. Generalising the Kuramoto model for the study of neuronal synchronisation in the brain. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 226, 2 (2007), 181–196

    2007

  19. [27]

    Mohammad Daneshzand, Miad Faezipour, and Buket D Barkana. 2018. Robust desynchronization of Parkinson’s disease pathological oscillations by frequency modulation of delayed feedback deep brain stimulation. PloS one 13, 11 (2018), e0207761

    2018

  20. [28]

    Per Danzl and Jeff Moehlis. 2007. Event-based feedback control of nonlinear oscillators using phase response curves. In2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 5806–5811

    2007

  21. [29]

    Alan D Degenhart, William E Bishop, Emily R Oby, Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara, Steven M Chase, Aaron P Batista, and Byron M Yu. 2020. Stabilization of a brain–computer interface via the alignment of low-dimensional spaces of neural activity. Nature biomedical engineering 4, 7 (202...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Andrey Dovzhenok, Choongseok Park, Robert M Worth, and Leonid L Rubchin- sky. 2013. Failure of delayed feedback deep brain stimulation for intermittent pathological synchronization in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 8, 3 (2013), e58264

    2013

  23. [31]

    Hao Fang, Stephen A Berman, Yueming Wang, and Yuxiao Yang. 2023. Robust adaptive deep brain stimulation control of non-stationary cortex-basal ganglia- thalamus network models in parkinson’s disease. bioRxiv (2023), 2023–08

    2023

  24. [32]

    Behnam Faraji, Korosh Rouhollahi, Akram Nezhadi, and Zahra Jamalpoor. 2022. A novel closed-loop deep brain stimulation technique for Parkinson’s patients rehabilitation utilizing machine learning. IEEE Sensors Journal 23, 3 (2022), 2914–2921

    2022

  25. [33]

    Behnam Faraji, Korosh Rouhollahi, Saeed Mollahoseini Paghaleh, Meysam Gheis- arnejad, and Mohammad-Hassan Khooban. 2023. Adaptive multi symptoms control of Parkinson’s disease by deep reinforcement learning.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 80 (2023), 104410

    2023

  26. [34]

    AmirAli Farokhniaee and Madeleine M Lowery. 2021. Cortical network effects of subthalamic deep brain stimulation in a thalamo-cortical microcircuit model. Journal of Neural Engineering 18, 5 (2021), 056006

    2021

  27. [35]

    Xiao-Jiang Feng, Eric Shea-Brown, Brian Greenwald, Robert Kosut, and Herschel Rabitz. 2007. Optimal deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus—a computational study. Journal of computational neuroscience 23 (2007), 265–282

    2007

  28. [36]

    Fabiano Alan Serafim Ferrari, Ricardo L Viana, Sergio Roberto Lopes, and Ruedi Stoop. 2015. Phase synchronization of coupled bursting neurons and the gener- alized Kuramoto model. Neural Networks 66 (2015), 107–118

    2015

  29. [37]

    John E Fleming, Eleanor Dunn, and Madeleine M Lowery. 2020. Simulation of closed-loop deep brain stimulation control schemes for suppression of patholog- ical beta oscillations in Parkinson’s disease. Frontiers in neuroscience 14 (2020), 520710

    2020

  30. [38]

    John E Fleming, Jakub Orłowski, Madeleine M Lowery, and Antoine Chaillet

  31. [39]

    Alessio Franci, Antoine Chaillet, Elena Panteley, and Françoise Lamnabhi- Lagarrigue. 2012. Desynchronization and inhibition of Kuramoto oscillators by scalar mean-field feedback. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems 24, 1 (2012), 169–217

    2012

  32. [40]

    PK Fung, AL Haber, and PA Robinson. 2013. Neural field theory of plasticity in the cerebral cortex. Journal of Theoretical Biology 318 (2013), 44–57

    2013

  33. [41]

    Qitong Gao, Michael Naumann, Ilija Jovanov, Vuk Lesi, Karthik Kamaravelu, Warren M Grill, and Miroslav Pajic. 2020. Model-based design of closed loop deep brain stimulation controller using reinforcement learning. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 11th International Conference on Cyber-Physica...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Qitong Gao, Stephen L Schmidt, Afsana Chowdhury, Guangyu Feng, Jennifer J Peters, Katherine Genty, Warren M Grill, Dennis A Turner, and Miroslav Pajic

  35. [43]

    Ro’ee Gilron, Simon Little, Randy Perrone, Robert Wilt, Coralie de Hemptinne, Maria S Yaroshinsky, Caroline A Racine, Sarah S Wang, Jill L Ostrem, Paul S Larson, et al. 2021. Long-term wireless streaming of neural recordings for circuit discovery and adaptive stimulation in in...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Ro’ee Gilron, Simon Little, Robert Wilt, Randy Perrone, Juan Anso, and Philip A Starr. 2021. Sleep-aware adaptive deep brain stimulation control: chronic use at home with dual independent linear discriminate detectors. Frontiers in Neuro- science 15 (2021), 732499

    2021

  37. [45]

    Logan L Grado, Matthew D Johnson, and Theoden I Netoff. 2018. Bayesian adaptive dual control of deep brain stimulation in a computational model of Parkinson’s disease. PLoS computational biology 14, 12 (2018), e1006606

    2018

  38. [46]

    Jitte Groothuis, Nick F Ramsey, Geert MJ Ramakers, and Geoffrey van der Plasse

  39. [47]

    Song Guo, Ping Zhuang, Mark Hallett, Zhe Zheng, Yuqing Zhang, Jianyu Li, and Yongjie Li. 2013. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s dis- ease: correlation between locations of oscillatory activity and optimal site of stimulation. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders ...

    2013

  40. [48]

    Yixin Guo and Jonathan E Rubin. 2011. Multi-site stimulation of subthalamic nucleus diminishes thalamocortical relay errors in a biophysical network model. Neural Networks 24, 6 (2011), 602–616

    2011

  41. [49]

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Kristian Hartikainen, George Tucker, Se- hoon Ha, Jie Tan, Vikash Kumar, Henry Zhu, Abhishek Gupta, Pieter Abbeel, et al . 2018. Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Philip J Hahn and Cameron C McIntyre. 2010. Modeling shifts in the rate and pattern of subthalamopallidal network activity during deep brain stimulation. Journal of computational neuroscience 28 (2010), 425–441

    2010

  43. [51]

    David Hansel, German Mato, and Claude Meunier. 1993. Phase dynamics for weakly coupled Hodgkin-Huxley neurons. Europhysics Letters 23, 5 (1993), 367

    1993

  44. [52]

    Mohammad Hemami, Jamal Amani Rad, and Kourosh Parand. 2021. Phase distribution control of neural oscillator populations using local radial basis function meshfree technique with application in epileptic seizures: A numerical simulation approach. Communications in Nonlinear Sci...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Jeffrey A Herron, Margaret C Thompson, Timothy Brown, Howard Jay Chizeck, Jeffrey G Ojemann, and Andrew L Ko. 2017. Cortical brain–computer interface for closed-loop deep brain stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 25, 11 (2017), 2180–2187

    2017

  46. [54]

    Alan L Hodgkin and Andrew F Huxley. 1952. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of physiology 117, 4 (1952), 500

    1952

  47. [55]

    Abbey B Holt and Theoden I Netoff. 2016. Computational modeling to advance deep brain stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models 19 (2016), 31–36

    2016

  48. [56]

    Abbey B Holt, Dan Wilson, Max Shinn, Jeff Moehlis, and Theoden I Netoff

  49. [57]

    Brady Houston, Margaret Thompson, Andrew Ko, and Howard Chizeck. 2019. A machine-learning approach to volitional control of a closed-loop deep brain stimulation system. Journal of neural engineering 16, 1 (2019), 016004

    2019

  50. [58]

    Luke A Johnson, Shane D Nebeck, Abirami Muralidharan, Matthew D Johnson, Kenneth B Baker, and Jerrold L Vitek. 2016. Closed-loop deep brain stimulation effects on parkinsonian motor symptoms in a non-human primate–is beta enough? Brain stimulation 9, 6 (2016), 892–896

    2016

  51. [59]

    Ilija Jovanov, Michael Naumann, Karthik Kumaravelu, Warren M Grill, and Miroslav Pajic. 2018. Platform for model-based design and testing for deep brain stimulation. In 2018 ACM/IEEE 9th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS). IEEE, 263–274

    2018

  52. [60]

    Patrick Kidger. 2021. On Neural Differential Equations . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Oxford

    2021

  53. [61]

    Ilya Kostrikov, Ashvin Nair, and Sergey Levine. 2021. Offline Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Q-Learning. (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Joachim K Krauss, Nir Lipsman, Tipu Aziz, Alexandre Boutet, Peter Brown, Jin Woo Chang, Benjamin Davidson, Warren M Grill, Marwan I Hariz, Andreas Horn, et al. 2021. Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions. Nature Reviews Neurology 17, 2 (202...

    2021

  55. [63]

    Dmitrii Krylov, Dmitry V Dylov, and Michael Rosenblum. 2020. Reinforcement learning for suppression of collective activity in oscillatory ensembles. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30, 3 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Dmitrii Krylov, Remi Tachet, Romain Laroche, Michael Rosenblum, and Dmitry V Dylov. 2020. Reinforcement learning framework for deep brain stimulation study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10948 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Karthik Kumaravelu, David T Brocker, and Warren M Grill. 2016. A biophysical model of the cortex-basal ganglia-thalamus network in the 6-OHDA lesioned rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Journal of computational neuroscience 40 (2016), 207–229

    2016

  58. [66]

    Alexis M Kuncel and Warren M Grill. 2004. Selection of stimulus parameters for deep brain stimulation. Clinical neurophysiology 115, 11 (2004), 2431–2441

    2004

  59. [67]

    Mikael Lindahl and Jeanette Hellgren Kotaleski. 2016. Untangling basal ganglia network dynamics and function: Role of dopamine depletion and inhibition investigated in a spiking network model. eneuro 3, 6 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Simon Little and Peter Brown. 2012. Brain Stimulation in Neurology and Psy- chiatry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1265, 1 (2012), 9

    2012

  61. [69]

    Simon Little, Alex Pogosyan, Spencer Neal, Baltazar Zavala, Ludvic Zrinzo, Marwan Hariz, Thomas Foltynie, Patricia Limousin, Keyoumars Ashkan, James FitzGerald, et al. 2013. Adaptive deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson disease. Annals of neurology 74, 3 (2013), 449–457

    2013

  62. [70]

    Chen Liu, Jiang Wang, Huiyan Li, Meili Lu, Bin Deng, Haitao Yu, Xile Wei, Chris Fietkiewicz, and Kenneth A Loparo. 2016. Closed-loop modulation of the pathological disorders of the basal ganglia network. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 28, 2 (2016), 371–382

    2016

  63. [71]

    Chen Liu, Ge Zhao, Jiang Wang, Hao Wu, Huiyan Li, Chris Fietkiewicz, and Kenneth A Loparo. 2020. Neural network-based closed-loop deep brain stim- ulation for modulation of pathological oscillation in Parkinson’s disease. Ieee Access 8 (2020), 161067–161079

    2020

  64. [72]

    Roxanne Lofredi, Huiling Tan, Wolf-Julian Neumann, Chien-Hung Yeh, Gerd- Helge Schneider, Andrea A Kühn, and Peter Brown. 2019. Beta bursts during continuous movements accompany the velocity decrement in Parkinson’s dis- ease patients. Neurobiology of disease 127 (2019), 462–471

    2019

  65. [73]

    Meili Lu and Xile Wei. 2017. Desynchronizing of noisy neuron networks using reinforcement learning. In 2017 8th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER). IEEE, 296–299

    2017

  66. [74]

    Meili Lu, Xile Wei, Yanqiu Che, Jiang Wang, and Kenneth A Loparo. 2019. Appli- cation of reinforcement learning to deep brain stimulation in a computational model of Parkinson’s disease. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabili- tation Engineering 28, 1 (2019), 339–349

    2019

  67. [75]

    Xuan Ma, Fabio Rizzoglio, Kevin L Bodkin, Eric Perreault, Lee E Miller, and Ann Kennedy. 2023. Using adversarial networks to extend brain computer interface decoding accuracy over time. elife 12 (2023), e84296

    2023

  68. [76]

    Yuri L Maistrenko, Borys Lysyansky, Christian Hauptmann, Oleksandr Burylko, and Peter A Tass. 2007. Multistability in the Kuramoto model with synaptic plasticity. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 75, 6 (2007), 066207

    2007

  69. [77]

    Thanos Manos, Sandra Diaz-Pier, and Peter A Tass. 2021. Long-term desyn- chronization by coordinated reset stimulation in a neural network model with synaptic and structural plasticity. Frontiers in physiology 12 (2021), 716556

    2021

  70. [78]

    Timon Merk, Victoria Peterson, Richard Köhler, Stefan Haufe, R Mark Richard- son, and Wolf-Julian Neumann. 2022. Machine learning based brain signal decoding for intelligent adaptive deep brain stimulation. Experimental Neurol- ogy 351 (2022), 113993

    2022

  71. [79]

    Hiroya Nakao. 2016. Phase reduction approach to synchronisation of nonlinear oscillators. Contemporary Physics 57, 2 (2016), 188–214

    2016

  72. [80]

    Wolf-Julian Neumann, Leon A Steiner, and Luka Milosevic. 2023. Neurophysio- logical mechanisms of deep brain stimulation across spatiotemporal resolutions. Brain 146, 11 (2023), 4456–4468

    2023

  73. [81]

    Andreia M Oliveira, Luis Coelho, Eduardo Carvalho, Manuel J Ferreira-Pinto, Rui Vaz, and Paulo Aguiar. 2023. Machine learning for adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: closing the loop. Journal of Neurology 270, 11 (2023), 5313–5326

    2023

  74. [82]

    Sindhu Padakandla, Prabuchandran KJ, and Shalabh Bhatnagar. 2020. Reinforce- ment learning algorithm for non-stationary environments. Applied Intelligence 50, 11 (2020), 3590–3606

    2020

  75. [83]

    Michelle Pan, Mariah Schrum, Vivek Myers, Erdem Bıyık, and Anca Dragan. 2024. Coprocessor Actor Critic: A Model-Based Reinforcement Learning Approach For Adaptive Brain Stimulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Alejandro Pascual, Julien Modolo, and Anne Beuter. 2006. Is a computational model useful to understand the effect of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease? Journal of integrative neuroscience 5, 04 (2006), 541–559

    2006

  77. [85]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer

  78. [86]

    Alex Pavlides, S John Hogan, and Rafal Bogacz. 2015. Computational models describing possible mechanisms for generation of excessive beta oscillations in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS computational biology 11, 12 (2015), e1004609

    2015

  79. [87]

    Oleksandr V Popovych and Peter A Tass. 2014. Control of abnormal synchro- nization in neurological disorders. Frontiers in neurology 5 (2014), 268

    2014

  80. [88]

    Oleksandr V Popovych and Peter A Tass. 2019. Adaptive delivery of continuous and delayed feedback deep brain stimulation-a computational study. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (2019), 10585

    2019

  81. [89]

    Antonin Raffin, Ashley Hill, Adam Gleave, Anssi Kanervisto, Maximilian Ernes- tus, and Noah Dormann. 2021. Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learn- ing Implementations. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22, 268 (2021), 1–8. http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/20-1364.html Ne...

    2021

  82. [90]

    Nanditha Rajamani, Helen Friedrich, Konstantin Butenko, Till Dembek, Florian Lange, Pavel Navrátil, Patricia Zvarova, Barbara Hollunder, Rob MA de Bie, Vincent JJ Odekerken, et al. 2024. Deep brain stimulation of symptom-specific networks in Parkinson’s disease. Nature Communi...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Caetano M Ranieri, Jhielson M Pimentel, Marcelo R Romano, Leonardo A Elias, Roseli AF Romero, Michael A Lones, Mariana FP Araujo, Patricia A Vargas, and Renan C Moioli. 2021. A data-driven biophysical computational model of Parkinson’s disease based on marmoset monkeys. IEEE a...

    2021

  84. [92]

    Marcelo R Romano, Renan C Moioli, and Leonardo A Elias. 2020. Evaluation of frequency-dependent effects of deep brain stimulation in a cortex-basal ganglia-thalamus network model of Parkinson’s disease. In 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Me...

    2020

  85. [93]

    Manuela Rosa, Gaia Giannicola, Sara Marceglia, Manuela Fumagalli, Sergio Barbieri, and Alberto Priori. 2012. Neurophysiology of deep brain stimulation. International review of neurobiology 107 (2012), 23–55

    2012

  86. [94]

    Robert Rosenbaum, Andrew Zimnik, Fang Zheng, Robert S Turner, Christian Alzheimer, Brent Doiron, and Jonathan E Rubin. 2014. Axonal and synaptic fail- ure suppress the transfer of firing rate oscillations, synchrony and information during high frequency deep brain stimulation....

    2014

  87. [95]

    Jonathan E Rubin. 2017. Computational models of basal ganglia dysfunction: the dynamics is in the details. Current opinion in neurobiology 46 (2017), 127–135

    2017

  88. [96]

    Michael E Rule, Timothy O’Leary, and Christopher D Harvey. 2019. Causes and consequences of representational drift. Current opinion in neurobiology 58 (2019), 141–147

    2019

  89. [97]

    2011.Neural control engineering: the emerging intersection between control theory and neuroscience

    Steven J Schiff. 2011.Neural control engineering: the emerging intersection between control theory and neuroscience . MIT Press

    2011

  90. [98]

    Helmut Schmidt, George Petkov, Mark P Richardson, and John R Terry. 2014. Dynamics on networks: the role of local dynamics and global networks on the emergence of hypersynchronous neural activity. PLoS computational biology 10, 11 (2014), e1003947

    2014

  91. [99]

    Stephen L Schmidt, Afsana H Chowdhury, Kyle T Mitchell, Jennifer J Peters, Qitong Gao, Hui-Jie Lee, Katherine Genty, Shein-Chung Chow, Warren M Grill, Miroslav Pajic, et al. 2024. At home adaptive dual target deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease with proportional cont...

    2024

  92. [100]

    Henning Schroll, Julien Vitay, and Fred H Hamker. 2014. Dysfunctional and compensatory synaptic plasticity in P arkinson’s disease. European Journal of Neuroscience 39, 4 (2014), 688–702

    2014

  93. [101]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

  94. [102]

    Siavash Shams, Sana Motallebi, and Mohammad Javad Yazdanpanah. 2022. An Optimal Data-Driven Method for Controlling Epileptic Seizures. In 2022 29th National and 7th International Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering (ICBME). IEEE, 250–255

    2022

  95. [103]

    Pitamber Shukla, Ishita Basu, Daniela Tuninetti, Daniel Graupe, and Kon- stantin V Slavin. 2014. On modeling the neuronal activity in movement disorder patients by using the Ornstein Uhlenbeck Process. In 2014 36th Annual Interna- tional Conference of the IEEE Engineering in M...

    2014

  96. [104]

    David Silver, Guy Lever, Nicolas Heess, Thomas Degris, Daan Wierstra, and Mar- tin Riedmiller. 2014. Deterministic policy gradient algorithms. In International conference on machine learning . Pmlr, 387–395

    2014

  97. [105]

    Roy M Smeal, G Bard Ermentrout, and John A White. 2010. Phase-response curves and synchronized neural networks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 1551 (2010), 2407–2422

    2010

  98. [106]

    Rosa Q So, Alexander R Kent, and Warren M Grill. 2012. Relative contributions of local cell and passing fiber activation and silencing to changes in thalamic fidelity during deep brain stimulation and lesioning: a computational modeling study. Journal of computational neurosci...

    2012

  99. [107]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Fei Su, Min Chen, Linlu Zu, Shanshan Li, and Huiyan Li. 2021. Model-based closed-loop suppression of parkinsonian beta band oscillations through origin analysis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 29 (2021), 450–457

    2021

  101. [109]

    Fei Su, Hong Wang, Linlu Zu, and Yan Chen. 2023. Closed-loop modulation of model parkinsonian beta oscillations based on CAR-fuzzy control algorithm. Cognitive Neurodynamics 17, 5 (2023), 1185–1199

    2023

  102. [110]

    Yanan Sui, Huiling Yu, Chen Zhang, Yue Chen, Changqing Jiang, and Luming Li. 2022. Deep brain–machine interfaces: sensing and modulating the human deep brain. National Science Review 9, 10 (2022), nwac212

    2022

  103. [111]

    Nicole C Swann, Coralie De Hemptinne, Margaret C Thompson, Svjetlana Miocinovic, Andrew M Miller, Jill L Ostrem, Howard J Chizeck, Philip A Starr, et al. 2018. Adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease using motor cortex sensing. Journal of neural engineering 15,...

    2018

  104. [112]

    David Terman, Jonathan E Rubin, AC Yew, and CJ Wilson. 2002. Activity patterns in a model for the subthalamopallidal network of the basal ganglia. Journal of Neuroscience 22, 7 (2002), 2963–2976

    2002

  105. [113]

    Konstantinos Spiliotis, Jens Starke, Denise Franz, Angelika Richter, and Rüdiger Köhling. 2022. Deep brain stimulation for movement disorder treatment: explor- ing frequency-dependent efficacy in a computational network model. Biological Cybernetics 116, 1 (2022), 93–116

    2022

  106. [114]

    Gerd Tinkhauser, Alek Pogosyan, Huiling Tan, Damian M Herz, Andrea A Kühn, and Peter Brown. 2017. Beta burst dynamics in Parkinson’s disease OFF and ON dopaminergic medication. Brain 140, 11 (2017), 2968–2981

    2017

  107. [115]

    Sacha Jennifer van Albada and Peter A Robinson. 2009. Mean-field model- ing of the basal ganglia-thalamocortical system. I: Firing rates in healthy and parkinsonian states. Journal of theoretical biology 257, 4 (2009), 642–663

    2009

  108. [116]

    Tim J Van Hartevelt, Joana Cabral, Gustavo Deco, Arne Møller, Alexander L Green, Tipu Z Aziz, and Morten L Kringelbach. 2014. Neural plasticity in human brain connectivity: the effects of long term deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease. PloS ...

    2014

  109. [117]

    Mikkel C Vinding, Panagiota Tsitsi, Josefine Waldthaler, Robert Oostenveld, Martin Ingvar, Per Svenningsson, and Daniel Lundqvist. 2020. Reduction of spontaneous cortical beta bursts in Parkinson’s disease is linked to symptom severity. Brain Communications 2, 1 (2020), fcaa052

    2020

  110. [118]

    JiaYi Wang, XiaoLi Yang, and ZhongKui Sun. 2018. Suppressing bursting syn- chronization in a modular neuronal network with synaptic plasticity. Cognitive neurodynamics 12 (2018), 625–636

    2018

  111. [119]

    Gerd Tinkhauser, Alek Pogosyan, Simon Little, Martijn Beudel, Damian M Herz, Huiling Tan, and Peter Brown. 2017. The modulatory effect of adaptive deep brain stimulation on beta bursts in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 140, 4 (2017), 1053–1067

    2017

  112. [120]

    Jeremy Watts, Anahita Khojandi, Oleg Shylo, and Ritesh A Ramdhani. 2020. Machine learning’s application in deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: A review. Brain Sciences 10, 11 (2020), 809

    2020

  113. [121]

    Xi-Le Wei, Yu-Lin Bai, Jiang Wang, Si-Yuan Chang, and Chen Liu. 2022. Parkin- sonian oscillations and their suppression by closed-loop deep brain stimulation based on fuzzy concept. Chinese Physics B 31, 12 (2022), 128701

    2022

  114. [122]

    Alik S Widge. 2024. Closing the loop in psychiatric deep brain stimulation: physiology, psychometrics, and plasticity. Neuropsychopharmacology 49, 1 (2024), 138–149

    2024

  115. [123]

    Kevin B Wilkins, Jillian A Melbourne, Pranav Akella, and Helen M Bronte- Stewart. 2023. Unraveling the complexities of programming neural adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 17 (2023)

    2023

  116. [124]

    Charles J Wilson, Bryce Beverlin, and Theoden Netoff. 2011. Chaotic desyn- chronization as the therapeutic mechanism of deep brain stimulation. Frontiers in systems neuroscience 5 (2011), 50

    2011

  117. [125]

    Kuanchuan Wang, Jiang Wang, Yulin Zhu, Huiyan Li, Chen Liu, Chris Fi- etkiewicz, and Kenneth A Loparo. 2022. Adaptive closed-loop control strategy inhibiting pathological basal ganglia oscillations. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 77 (2022), 103776

    2022

  118. [126]

    Ming Yang, Jiang Wang, Shanshan Li, Kuanchuan Wang, Wei Yue, and Chen Liu

  119. [127]

    Zixiao Yin, Guanyu Zhu, Baotian Zhao, Yutong Bai, Yin Jiang, Wolf-Julian Neumann, Andrea A Kühn, and Jianguo Zhang. 2021. Local field potentials in Parkinson’s disease: a frequency-based review. Neurobiology of Disease 155 (2021), 105372

    2021

  120. [128]

    Ying Yu, David Escobar Sanabria, Jing Wang, Claudia M Hendrix, Jianyu Zhang, Shane D Nebeck, Alexia M Amundson, Zachary B Busby, Devyn L Bauer, Matthew D Johnson, et al . 2021. Parkinsonism alters Beta burst dynamics across the basal ganglia–motor cortical network. Journal of ...

    2021

  121. [129]

    Ying Yu, Xiaomin Wang, Qishao Wang, and Qingyun Wang. 2020. A review of computational modeling and deep brain stimulation: applications to Parkinson’s disease. Applied mathematics and mechanics 41, 12 (2020), 1747–1768

    2020

  122. [130]

    José Alfredo Zavaleta-Viveros, Porfirio Toledo, Martha Lorena Avendaño- Garrido, Jesús Enrique Escalante-Martínez, María-Leonor López-Meraz, and Karen Paola Ramos-Riera. 2023. A modification to the Kuramoto model to simulate epileptic seizures as synchronization. Journal of Ma...

    2023

  123. [131]

    Jingyu Yang and Yanqiu Che. 2022. Beta Oscillations Suppression in a Population Model of Parkinson’s Disease by Linear Delayed Feedback Control. In 2022 37th Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC) . IEEE, 974–978

    2022

  124. [132]

    Zixi Zhao, Aliya Ahmadi, Caleb Hoover, Logan Grado, Nicholas Peterson, Xinran Wang, David Freeman, Thomas Murray, Andrew Lamperski, David Darrow, et al

  125. [133]

    Neural Networks 165 (2023), 406–419

    Adaptive closed-loop paradigm of electrophysiology for neuron models. Neural Networks 165 (2023), 406–419

    2023

  126. [134]

    the further relative distance, the weaker the amplitude of LFP

    Yulin Zhu, Jiang Wang, Huiyan Li, Chen Liu, and Warren M Grill. 2021. Adaptive parameter modulation of deep brain stimulation based on improved supervisory algorithm. Frontiers in neuroscience 15 (2021), 750806. A Appendix A.1 Code accessibility The code will be open-access up...

    2021

  127. [138]

    Zhen-Yu Zhang, Zhiyu Xie, Huaxiu Yao, and Masashi Sugiyama. [n. d.]. Test- time Adaptation in Non-stationary Environments via Adaptive Representation Alignment. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems

  128. [141]

    Shijie Zhou, Peng Ji, Qing Zhou, Jianfeng Feng, Jürgen Kurths, and Wei Lin. 2017. Adaptive elimination of synchronization in coupled oscillator. New Journal of Physics 19, 8 (2017), 083004

    2017

  129. [143]

    and structural plasticity [77]. Structural plasticity allows neu- rons to establish new or delete preexisting synaptic connections; this occurs via the extension or retraction of axons and dendrites, or by modifying the number of axonal boutons or dendritic spines [77]. The RT...

    2025

  130. [2014]

    Brain stimulation 7, 1 (2014), 1–6

    Physiological challenges for intracortical electrodes. Brain stimulation 7, 1 (2014), 1–6

    2014

  131. [2016]

    PLoS computational biology 12, 7 (2016), e1005011

    Phasic burst stimulation: a closed-loop approach to tuning deep brain stimulation parameters for Parkinson’s disease. PLoS computational biology 12, 7 (2016), e1005011

    2016

  132. [2017]

    Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. (2017)

    2017

  133. [2020]

    Frontiers in neuroscience 14 (2020), 639

    Self-tuning deep brain stimulation controller for suppression of beta oscil- lations: analytical derivation and numerical validation. Frontiers in neuroscience 14 (2020), 639

    2020

  134. [2021]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation KDD ’25, August 03–07, 2025, Toronto, Canada Kuzmina et al

    Optimization of spinal cord stimulation using bayesian preference learning and its validation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation KDD ’25, August 03–07, 2025, Toronto, Canada Kuzmina et al. Engineering 29 (2021), 1987–1997

    2021

  135. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023)

    Offline learning of closed-loop deep brain stimulation controllers for parkinson disease treatment. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023) . 44–55. KDD ’25, August 03–07, 2025, Toronto, Canada Kuzmina et al

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.