Fig. 3: Low-frequency DBS does not induce HFO but evokes compound activity that damped faster. | Communications Biology

Fig. 3: Low-frequency DBS does not induce HFO but evokes compound activity that damped faster.

From: Electroceutically induced subthalamic high-frequency oscillations and evoked compound activity may explain the mechanism of therapeutic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease

Fig. 3

a Representative TFMs of high- and low- frequency stimulation from a patient shows that HFO was induced only with the former. The large artifacts caused by harmonics of the stimulation frequency are interpolated. The vertical red lines on TFMs are the transition artifacts associated with turning the stimulator on and off. b The HFO power change was significantly higher with high-frequency stimulation (n = 13). c Both high- and low- frequency stimulation induced ECA. The first 1 ms after the stimulation pulse is omitted due to large artifact amplitude. d The difference between ECA amplitude after high- and low-frequency stimulation was only marginally significant (n = 13). e The damping of ECA derived from the envelope of the Hilbert transform of the waveforms was significantly faster after low-frequency stimulation (mean ± standard deviation: 22.5 ± 5 vs. 13 ± 3.8 ms, n = 13). On each box in the boxplots, the central mark indicates the median, and the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers, and the outliers are plotted individually using the “+” symbol. The individual data points are also plotted as red circles. ~ denotes p < 0.06, *** denotes significance <0.001.

Back to article page