![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Control of Traveling Waves in the Mammalian Cortex 1 Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA 3 Program in Neuroscience, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA 4 Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA *Electronic address: Email: bgluckma/at/gmu.edu The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Phys Rev Lett. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.Abstract We experimentally confirmed predictions that modulation of the neuronal threshold with electrical fields can speed up, slow down, and even block traveling waves in neocortical slices. The predictions are based on a Wilson-Cowan–type integro-differential equation model of propagating neocortical activity. Wave propagation could be modified quickly and reversibly within targeted regions of the network. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of direct modulation of the threshold to control wave propagation in a neural system. Traveling waves in excitable media are commonly observed in physical [1,2], chemical [3], and biological [4–6] systems. Mathematical models have been developed in conjunction with these experimental systems to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics and infer how individual experimental parameters of the system, such as threshold, contribute to these dynamics [5,7–10]. Rapid access to system parameters would offer the means to control pattern formation and dynamics in these systems. Successful modulation of dynamics has been accomplished in chemical, cardiac, and neural systems. In the Belousov-Zhabotinsky chemical reaction system, modulation of excitability through local changes in illumination of a light sensitive catalyst allowed control of wave propagation [11]. Electric fields modulated activity propagation in heart tissue [12]. The propagation speed of excitation waves in neocortex has been slowed by pharmacologically interfering with chemical synaptic transmission [13]. It has been previously shown that electric fields can modulate neuronal thresholds by quickly and reversibly polarizing asymmetric neurons [14]. Electric fields as small as 140 μV/mm have been observed to modulate neural firing [15]. Polarization occurs on time scales of about 20 ms and can be maintained for many seconds or minutes [16]. Applied electric fields have been used to adaptively control seizure formation in vitro [17], modulate epileptiform activity in vivo, and dynamically probe activity changes associated with impending seizures [18]. We show here that electric fields can quickly alter traveling wave dynamics in ways predicted by theory through direct modulation of neuronal threshold. To our knowledge, this is the first report of control of wave propagation through direct modulation of excitability threshold in any neural system. Wilson and Cowan [19] developed a set of integro-differential equations to form a continuum model of cortex which demonstrated traveling waves. This model was recently modified [20] to represent traveling pulse propagation in disinhibited neocortex [21]. The model predicts that threshold determines several dynamical properties of the traveling wave as shown in the next few paragraphs. Specifically, at low threshold waves travel faster than at high threshold. The model is
The variable u represents neural activity, the fractional firing rate of the local neurons. Activity at position x at time t, u(x; t), is a function of the activity of the whole population with spatial connectivity w. Activation at position x depends on u(x′; t) with respect to a threshold value θ through the function P. As in [20], we choose P to be the Heaviside step function such that synaptic input comes only from positions with activity above threshold. A recovery variable, υ(x; t), accounts for activity accommodation and adaptation which contribute to refractoriness in the wake of activity. The parameter is the relative time constant for changes in recovery (υ) versus activity (u) and is typically small. We set the parameter β to 0, though results are similar for β small.We assume a traveling wave solution, u(x; t) = U(x − ct) = U(z). Boundary conditions for a single, left-going traveling pulse are chosen such that U goes to zero at infinity, and is equal to threshold θ at 0 and a (see Fig. 1 U= c(w(z) −w(z) − a)). With w chosen to be w(z)= e−|z|/2, the analytical solution is partitioned into three regions: (1) z < 0, (2) 0 < z < a, and (3) a < z, and can be written as U(z) = Aiez + Bie−z + Cieλ+ z + Dieλ −z . Here i denotes the solution region [(1), (2), or (3)] and the exponent λ± is determined from the homogeneous solution to the differential equation. We match the four coefficients at the boundaries, U(0) and U(a), to numerically determine the relationships between the four parameters of the system: relative time constant ( ), pulse speed (c), pulse width (a), and threshold (θ). Pulse speed and width are shown in Fig. 1 (solid and dashed lines).
There exist either two or no solutions for speed and width for a given pair of threshold and relative time constant values. When there are two solutions (at smaller θ), the smaller width and speed solution (Fig. 1 Thus, these equations predict for the stable solution that speed and width depend on threshold such that at low threshold the pulses are wide and fast (large a and c, respectively), and at higher threshold the pulses are narrow and slow (small a and c). As threshold is increased, propagation will fail at nonzero speed and width. We therefore predicted that we could speed up, slow down, and block propagating neural activity in neocortical slices with the application of electric fields. Furthermore, we predicted that we could affect wave propagation either globally, over the whole slice, or locally, in a specific region of the slice, by changing the geometry of the applied field. Transverse neocortical slices (400 μm thick) prepared from adult male Sprague-Dawley rats (age 26–68 days) were bathed in 32° artificial cerebrospinal fluid (130 NaCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 3.5 KCl, 23.9 NaHCO3, 1.1 MgSO4, 10 dextrose, 1.23 CaCl2, in mM) containing low doses (4.7–8.3 μM) of picrotoxin, a blocker of γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABAA) inhibitory transmitter. Previous work on propagation of activity in neocortical slices bathed in low doses of picrotoxin revealed that layer 5 neurons are necessary for supporting the initiation and the transmission of activity [24]. These layer 5 neurons have long apical dendrites and are easily polarizable with electric fields applied parallel to the dendrite-soma axis. Therefore, this system is amenable to electric field modulation for altering propagation. A bipolar stimulation electrode (Fig. 2
Wave propagation was initiated with a short current pulse (0.15 ms, 0.1–1.0 mA) applied through an RC circuit to the bipolar stimulation electrode. The amplitude of the pulse was fixed for the duration of the experiment at a level determined to reliably initiate propagating activity. A waveform generator (Hewlett-Packard 33120A) was used to program a multiphasic periodic electric field (100–125 mHz), consisting of four phases: (1) positive, (2) zero, (3) negative, and (4) zero amplitude dc fields. Each phase corresponded to the application of a constant field for a duration of 2–2.5 s. Transitions between the phases were smoothed with a low frequency half sinusoid. To examine neuronal propagation speed as a function of applied field, waves were initiated by stimulating during the various phases of the waveform. Propagation speed was determined with at least 14 repetitions at each field amplitude for each phase. Double barrel glass micropipette electrodes filled with 0.9% NaCl were used to differentially record local extracellular field activity in layers 2–3 with custom built pre-amplifiers (gain = 10) and an amplifier bank (DAGAN) with bandpass filter settings (1 Hz–1 kHz) and a gain of 200. The voltage recorded is associated with neuronal population electrical activity and is qualitatively related to the model parameter u. In the global field experiment, activity was recorded in two places in layers 2–3: near the wave initiation site and more distant from the initiation site (2–10 mm interelectrode distance). In the local field experiment, three recording electrodes were placed to record the propagating activity across the surface of the slice with the local field placed between either the first or the second pair of electrodes. Propagation speed was determined by the transit time between electrode pairs. In order to account for experimental drift, baseline speed as a function of time was determined with a polynomial regression fit during the zero field phases. Speed as a function of field is presented as a percentage of this baseline speed. We observed modulation of propagation speed with globally applied electric fields in 25 of 25 slices. Examples of raw data are shown in Fig. 3(a)
Sufficiently large negative fields (range 5–125 mV/mm, average 39 mV/mm) caused propagation failure in 18 of 25 slices. The rate of failure depended on the amplitude of the suppressive field [Fig. 3(b) In some experiments, a high positive field (range 50–113 mV/mm, average 77 mV/mm) caused wave initiation prior to stimulation in eight of 25 slices. This caused apparent propagation failure of the stimulated waves due to refractoriness. This premature wave initiation at high positive fields could also be followed by aberrantly slow stimulated waves, as in the second experiment of Fig. 3(b) We observed modulation of propagation speed in 18 of 20 slices with locally applied electric fields. In these experiments, modulation was observed only in the region spanning the local field. In the other two of 20 slices, no clear speed modulation was observed. Examples of raw data are shown in Fig. 4(a)
The speed of propagation as a function of field is shown in Figs. 4(b) and 4(c) It is important to note that electric field modulation occurs quickly. In these experiments stimulation for wave initiation was applied 700 ms after the transition between values of the electric field. Therefore, the modulation of the network behavior occurred on subsecond time scales. We experimentally confirmed theoretical predictions that threshold modulation can increase or decrease the propagation speed of, and even block, cortical traveling waves. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of direct modulation of threshold to control wave propagation in a neural system. Such modulation could be applied rapidly in a locally precise manner. Since neural systems permit direct access to threshold, these findings open avenues to novel neural prosthetic applications including control and containment of seizure propagation. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Whitaker Foundation Grant No. RG990432 and NIH Grants No. K02MH01493 and No. R01MH50006. We are grateful to D. J. Pinto, G. B. Ermentrout, and E. Sander for helpful discussions. References 1. T. E. Faber, Fluid Dynamics for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995). 2. Schulman LS, Seidan PE. Science. 1986;233:425. [PubMed] 3. Zaikin A, Zhabotinsky AM. Nature (London). 1970;225:535. [PubMed] 4. Carey AB, Giles RH, Jr, McLean RG. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1978;27:573. [PubMed] 5. A. T. Winfree, The Geometry of Biological Time (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001), 2nd ed. 6. Rinzel J, Keller JB. Biophys J. 1973;13:1313. [PubMed] 7. Cross MC, Hohenberg PC. Rev Mod Phys. 1993;65:851. 8. Tyson JJ, Keener JP. Physica (Amsterdam). 1993;32D:327. 9. Rinzel J, Terman D, Wang XJ, Ermentrout B. Science. 1998;279:1351. [PubMed] 10. Bressloff PC. J Math Biol. 2000;40:169. [PubMed] 11. Sakurai T, Mihaliuk E, Chirila F, Sholwalter K. Science. 2002;296:2009. [PubMed] 12. Gray RA, Mornev OA, Jalife J, Aslanidi OV, Pertsov AM. Phys Rev Lett. 2001;87:168104. [PubMed] 13. Golomb D, Amitai Y. J Neurophysiol. 1997;78:1199. [PubMed] 14. Chan CY, Hounsgaard J, Nicholson C. J Physiol. 1988;402:751. [PubMed] 15. Francis JT, Gluckman BJ, Schiff SJ. J Neurosci. 2003;23:7255. [PubMed] 16. Bikson M, Inoue M, Akiyama H, Deans JK, Fox JE, Miyakawa H, Jefferys JGR. J Physiol. 2004;557:175. [PubMed] 17. Gluckman BJ, Nguyen H, Weinstein SL, Schiff SJ. J Neurosci. 2001;21:590. [PubMed] 18. Richardson KA, Gluckman BJ, Weinstein SL, Glosch CE, Moon JB, Gwinn RP, Gale K, Schiff SJ. Epilepsia. 2003;44:768. [PubMed] 19. Wilson HR, Cowan JD. Kybernetik. 1973;13:55. [PubMed] 20. Pinto DJ, Ermentrout B. SIAM J Appl Math. 2001;62:206. 21. Neocortex contains a network of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Drugs can be applied to compromise network subpopulations, such as the inhibitory neurons, to alter the dynamics of the system. 22. Amari S. Biol Cybern. 1977;27:77. [PubMed] 23. Marder M, Gross S. J Mech Phys Solids. 1995;43:1. 24. Telfeian AE, Connors BW. Epilepsia. 1998;39:700. [PubMed] 25. Connors BW. Nature (London). 1984;310:685. [PubMed] 26. Chervin RD, Pierce PA, Connors BW. J Neurophysiol. 1988;60:1695. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Science. 1986 Jul 25; 233(4762):425-431.
[Science. 1986]Nature. 1970 Feb 7; 225(5232):535-7.
[Nature. 1970]Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1978 May; 27(3):573-80.
[Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1978]Biophys J. 1973 Dec; 13(12):1313-37.
[Biophys J. 1973]J Math Biol. 2000 Feb; 40(2):169-98.
[J Math Biol. 2000]Science. 2002 Jun 14; 296(5575):2009-12.
[Science. 2002]Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Oct 15; 87(16):168104.
[Phys Rev Lett. 2001]J Neurophysiol. 1997 Sep; 78(3):1199-211.
[J Neurophysiol. 1997]J Physiol. 1988 Aug; 402():751-71.
[J Physiol. 1988]J Neurosci. 2003 Aug 13; 23(19):7255-61.
[J Neurosci. 2003]J Physiol. 2004 May 15; 557(Pt 1):175-90.
[J Physiol. 2004]J Neurosci. 2001 Jan 15; 21(2):590-600.
[J Neurosci. 2001]Epilepsia. 2003 Jun; 44(6):768-77.
[Epilepsia. 2003]Kybernetik. 1973 Sep; 13(2):55-80.
[Kybernetik. 1973]Biol Cybern. 1977 Aug 3; 27(2):77-87.
[Biol Cybern. 1977]Biophys J. 1973 Dec; 13(12):1313-37.
[Biophys J. 1973]Epilepsia. 1998 Jul; 39(7):700-8.
[Epilepsia. 1998]Nature. 1984 Aug 23-29; 310(5979):685-7.
[Nature. 1984]J Neurophysiol. 1988 Nov; 60(5):1695-713.
[J Neurophysiol. 1988]