TY - JOUR
T1 - Galvanic vs. pulsatile effects on decision-making networks
T2 - reshaping the neural activation landscape
AU - Adkisson, Paul W.
AU - Steinhardt, Cynthia R.
AU - Fridman, Gene Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd.
PY - 2024/4/1
Y1 - 2024/4/1
N2 - Objective. Primarily due to safety concerns, biphasic pulsatile stimulation (PS) is the present standard for electrical excitation of neural tissue with a diverse set of applications. While pulses have been shown to be effective to achieve functional outcomes, they have well-known deficits. Due to recent technical advances, galvanic stimulation (GS), delivery of current for extended periods of time (>1 s), has re-emerged as an alternative to PS. Approach. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making cortical network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and GS in the context of a perceptual decision-making task. Main results. Based on previous work, we hypothesized that GS would produce more spatiotemporally distributed, network-sensitive neural responses, while PS would produce highly synchronized activation of a limited group of neurons. Our results in-silico support these hypotheses for low-amplitude GS but deviate when galvanic amplitudes are large enough to directly activate or block nearby neurons. Significance. We conclude that with careful parametrization, GS could overcome some limitations of PS to deliver more naturalistic firing patterns in the group of targeted neurons.
AB - Objective. Primarily due to safety concerns, biphasic pulsatile stimulation (PS) is the present standard for electrical excitation of neural tissue with a diverse set of applications. While pulses have been shown to be effective to achieve functional outcomes, they have well-known deficits. Due to recent technical advances, galvanic stimulation (GS), delivery of current for extended periods of time (>1 s), has re-emerged as an alternative to PS. Approach. In this paper, we use a winner-take-all decision-making cortical network model to investigate differences between pulsatile and GS in the context of a perceptual decision-making task. Main results. Based on previous work, we hypothesized that GS would produce more spatiotemporally distributed, network-sensitive neural responses, while PS would produce highly synchronized activation of a limited group of neurons. Our results in-silico support these hypotheses for low-amplitude GS but deviate when galvanic amplitudes are large enough to directly activate or block nearby neurons. Significance. We conclude that with careful parametrization, GS could overcome some limitations of PS to deliver more naturalistic firing patterns in the group of targeted neurons.
KW - galvanic
KW - neuromodulation
KW - pulsatile
KW - tDCS
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85189755657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85189755657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1088/1741-2552/ad36e2
DO - 10.1088/1741-2552/ad36e2
M3 - Article
C2 - 38518369
AN - SCOPUS:85189755657
SN - 1741-2560
VL - 21
JO - Journal of neural engineering
JF - Journal of neural engineering
IS - 2
M1 - 026021
ER -