Impact of Axon Model Complexity on Deep Brain Stimulation: A Comparative Analysis of MRG and Cohen Double-Cable Models
Bartels, R.; Vinke, S.; Rijpma, A.; Nadimi, M.
Show abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) modeling relies heavily on biophysical neuron models to estimate neural activation thresholds and predict stimulation spread. In this study, we systematically compared a widely adopted axon model, the McIntyre-Richardson-Grill (MRG) model (Model I), with a more detailed biophysical model, the Cohen model (Model II), to assess how structural and electrophysiological differences affect predicted DBS outcomes. Electric field distributions generated by 2202 DBS lead were applied to the neuron models as extracellular input stimuli. Both models were simulated under biphasic pulse stimulation across varying axon-electrode distances, pulse widths, and stimulation frequencies. Activation distances ranged from approximately 2 to 10 mm depending on stimulation parameters and contact location. At 2 mA, Model I achieved an activation distance of 6 mm, whereas Model II reached 10 mm, indicating greater excitability. Across matched fiber tracts, threshold differences ranged from -1.40 mA to 0.27 mA, with Model II requiring lower thresholds in 97.7% of cases. Both models showed a strong inverse relationship between pulse width and activation threshold. However, frequency responses differed: Model II exhibited increasing thresholds at higher frequencies, while Model I showed a slight decrease. Machine learning regressors trained on distance, pulse width, and frequency achieved high predictive accuracy, with Gradient Boosting performing best. Model II demonstrated superior prediction metrics (R^2 = 0.986; RMSE = 0.045 mA; MAE = 0.034 mA) compared to Model I (R^2 = 0.977; RMSE = 0.089 mA; MAE = 0.068 mA). Overall, both models reliably estimate DBS-induced activation, but structural differences significantly affect excitability and frequency-dependent behavior. With appropriate awareness of their respective strengths and limitations, either model can be used to derive activation distances for estimating electric field isolevels and the volume of tissue activated in patient-specific DBS simulations.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated optimization of deep brain stimulation parameters for modulating neuroimaging-based targets 96%
- A retrospective evaluation of automated optimization of deep brain stimulation parameters 96%
- Combining biophysical models and machine learning to optimize implant geometry and stimulation protocol for intraneural electrodes 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Electrode positioning errors reduce current dose for focal tDCS set-ups: Evidence from individualized electric field mapping 94%
- Timing-dependent synergies between noninvasive motor cortex and spinal cord stimulation in chronic cervical spinal cord injury 92%
- SC10X/U: A High-density Electrode System for Non-Invasive Recording of Neural Activity of the Cervical Spinal Cord 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Neural Selectivity, Efficiency, and Dose Equivalence in Deep Brain Stimulation through Pulse Width Tuning and Segmented Electrodes. 97%
- Adaptive current-flow models of ECT: Explaining individual static impedance, dynamic impedance, and brain current delivery 94%
- Bridging macroscopic and microscopic modeling of electric field by brain stimulation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying the engagement of a brain network during a targeted tDCS-fMRI experiment using a machine learning approach 93%
- EFMouse: a toolbox to model stimulation-induced electric fields in the mouse brain 93%
- Circuits and mechanisms for TMS-induced corticospinal waves: Connecting sensitivityanalysis to the network graph 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Computational modelling of the long-term effects of brain stimulation on the local and global structural connectivity of epileptic patients 93%
- Flat Electrode Contacts for Peripheral Nerve Stimulation 93%
- Impact of galvanic vestibular stimulation electrode current density on brain current flow patterns: Does electrode size matter? 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.