Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of several potential biomarkers for the closed-loop DBS

From: Advances in closed-loop deep brain stimulation devices

Biomarker Stability Invasiveness degree Capability to merge stimulation/recording electrodes Patient friendliness Spatial resolution Applied diseases
Neuro-electrophysiological biomarkers
 EEG potentials High noise and artifacts sensitivity Non-invasive No, needs separate recording and stimulation electrodes No damage to the head Poor, ~3–9 cm [38] PD [29]
 ECoG potentials Moderate noise and artifacts sensitivity Least invasive No, needs separate recording and stimulation electrodes Minor damages to the skull and Dura matter Moderate, ~0.5 cm [38] PD and Epilepsy [23]
 LFP potentials Long-term stability [48] Invasive Yes, same recording and stimulation electrode [84] Some neuronal and vasculature damages High, ~1 mm [38] PD [3, 12], Epilepsy [86]
 AP potentials Need recalibration for good stability [44], less practical for long-term sue Most invasive No, needs separate recording and stimulation electrodes Extra neuronal and vasculature damages Very High, ~0.2 mm [38] PD [2]
Other biomarkers
 EMG potentials High noise and artifacts sensitivity Non-invasive [31, 32] No, needs separate recording and stimulation electrodes No damage to the head Poor [150] Movement disorders [30, 33]
 Biochemical potentials Require short time for stabilization of carbon-fiber micro-electrode during recording [45] Invasive No, needs separate recording and stimulation electrodes [151] Some neuronal and vasculature damages High [152] Essential tremor [153], and depression [154]