Back

Differentiating filter-induced oscillations from physiological stimulation-evoked potentials in intracranial recordings

Zivkovic, L.; Sumarac, S.; Crompton, D.; Hutchison, W. D.; Lozano, A. M.; Kalia, S. K.; Milosevic, L.

2026-05-12 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.05.08.723848 bioRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionStimulation-evoked potentials (SEPs), recorded both during and after deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery, have shown promise for guiding DBS targeting and programming. However, filtering protocols applied to stimulation trains produce an artifact we call a filter-induced oscillation (FIO) which closely mimics physiological SEPs. Hence, we outline the mechanistic origins of this distortion and describe a means of differentiating it from valid SEP activity. MethodsWe recorded in 18 patients undergoing DBS surgery targeting the subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus internus. We stimulated target nuclei with cathode-first (CF) and anode-first (AF) pulses to record native SEPs, and in white matter tracts (null condition). Recordings were subsequently filtered to illustrate FIO. Next, we filtered harmonic frequencies of an artificial stimulation train to demonstrate FIO origins. Finally, FIO was deliberately generated in white matter recordings with a notch filter, and its behaviour contrasted with SEPs during AF and CF stimulation. ResultsFiltering stimulation trains produced FIOs that depended on filter order and corner frequency. We also showed that FIO emerges from filter-induced attenuations of harmonic frequencies which compose stimulation trains, producing oscillations of like frequency around pulses. Finally, FIOs reverse in polarity depending on AF or CF stimulation, whereas SEPs do not. ConclusionsGiven the potential for widespread adoption of SEPs in DBS targeting and programming, safe analytical protocols are imperative to avoid the induction of processing-related artifacts which can be misinterpreted as biological signals. Here we establish the necessary theory for identifying FIOs and tuning analytical pipelines to avoid their generation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.4%
2
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.8%
3
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.3%
5
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
7
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.0%
9
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.7%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.4%
11
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
13
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
16
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
17
Epilepsia
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%
19
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.7%
21
Neurophotonics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
22
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.7%
23
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
24
Neuroscience Letters
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
Brain Topography
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%