Closed-loop Neurostimulation Feedback for Adaptive Energy Control

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current deep brain stimulation systems face challenges in optimizing electrode placement and stimulation parameters, leading to inefficient energy consumption, inadequate treatment, and undesirable side effects, due to the lack of formal training among programmers and the dynamic nature of the brain, requiring frequent adjustments and surgical interventions.

Innovation Solution

A neurostimulation system that acquires physiological information to automatically displace the locus of stimulation relative to the tissue, using monitoring and control circuitry to modify electrode combinations or electrical current distribution based on sensed signals, allowing for adaptive adjustment of stimulation parameters.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If stimulation parameters are set at high amplitude, wide pulse duration, or fast frequency to ensure adequate treatment, then treatment efficacy is improved, but energy consumption increases and side effects worsen

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetreatment efficacyVSAvoidenergy consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs physiological monitoring circuitry to detect brain signals and uses this feedback to automatically adjust stimulation parameters in real-time, replacing manual programming with closed-loop control that adapts to changing brain states and optimizes energy efficiency

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements dynamic adjustment of stimulation parameters based on real-time physiological feedback, allowing the system to adapt stimulation amplitude, pulse duration, and frequency according to actual brain activity rather than using fixed static settings

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Use of energy by moving object

If stimulation parameters are set at low amplitude, narrow pulse duration, or slow frequency to minimize energy consumption, then energy efficiency is improved, but treatment efficacy deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveenergy efficiencyVSAvoidtreatment efficacy

Core Design Contradiction:

Use of energy by moving objectVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system continuously monitors physiological signals and adjusts stimulation parameters dynamically, ensuring that sufficient stimulation is delivered only when and where needed, thereby maintaining treatment efficacy while optimizing energy efficiency

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system automatically modifies stimulation parameters including amplitude, pulse duration, and frequency based on detected physiological states, enabling the delivery of effective therapy at lower overall energy consumption through intelligent parameter optimization

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Device complexity

If fixed electrode placement and stimulation parameters are used to simplify the system, then device complexity is reduced, but adaptability to dynamic brain changes deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem simplicityVSAvoidadaptability to brain changes

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates physiological monitoring and automatic adjustment capabilities that enable fixed electrode placements to adapt to dynamic brain changes, eliminating the need for complex manual reprogramming while maintaining high adaptability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The neurostimulation system automatically monitors its own performance through physiological feedback and self-adjusts stimulation parameters without external intervention, enabling simple fixed electrode placements to achieve adaptive therapy

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Measurement precision

If manual programming by experienced technicians is used to optimize stimulation parameters, then treatment precision is improved, but fitting time and operational complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveparameter optimization accuracyVSAvoidfitting time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses real-time physiological feedback to automatically determine optimal stimulation parameters, replacing time-consuming manual trial-and-error programming with automated closed-loop optimization that achieves comparable or superior precision

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual programming operations with automated electronic control systems that use physiological feedback to automatically optimize stimulation parameters, eliminating the need for experienced technicians to perform tedious manual adjustments

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS9248280B2Closed-loop feedback for steering stimulation energy within tissue

Publication Date: 2016.02.02 BOSTON SCI NEUROMODULATION CORP

AI summary

Methods, systems, and external programmers provide therapy to a patient having a dysfunction. In one aspect, electrical energy is conveyed between electrodes to create a stimulation region in tissue adjacent the electrodes. Physiological information from the patient is acquired and analyzed, and a locus of the stimulation region is electronically displaced relative to the tissue based on the analysis of the acquired physiological information. In another aspect, electrical energy is delivered to tissue of the patient in accordance with one or more stimulation parameters. A cognitive brain signals is sensed and analyzed, and the stimulation parameter(s) are modified based on the analysis of the cognitive brain signal.