Search

Summary Focal epilepsies represent approximately half of all diagnoses, and more than one‐third of these patients are refractory to pharmacologic treatment. Although resection can result in seizure freedom, many patients do not meet surgical criteria, as seizures may be multifocal in origin or have a focus in an eloquent region of the brain. For these individuals, several U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved electrical stimulation paradigms serve as alternative options, including vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, and stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus. All of these are safe, flexible, and lead to progressive seizure control over time when used as an adjunctive therapy to antiepileptic drugs. Focal epilepsies frequently involve significant comorbidities such as cognitive decline. Similar to antiepilepsy medications and surgical resection, current stimulation targets and parameters have yet to address cognitive impairments directly, with patients reporting persistent comorbidities associated with focal epilepsy despite a significant reduction in the number of their seizures. Although low‐frequency theta oscillations of the septohippocampal network are critical for modulating cellular activity and, in turn, cognitive processing, the coordination of neural excitability is also imperative for preventing seizures. In this review, we summarize current FDA‐approved electrical stimulation paradigms and propose that theta oscillations of the medial septal nucleus represent a novel neuromodulation target for concurrent seizure reduction and cognitive improvement in epilepsy. Ultimately, further advancements in clinical neurostimulation strategies will allow for the efficient treatment of both seizures and comorbidities, thereby improving overall quality of life for patients with epilepsy.

Background Direct brain stimulation via electrodes implanted for intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) permits the modulation of endogenous electrical signals with significantly greater spatial and temporal specificity than non-invasive approaches. It also allows for the stimulation of deep brain structures important to memory, such as the hippocampus, that are difficult, if not impossible, to target non-invasively. Direct stimulation studies of these deep memory structures, though, have produced mixed results, with some reporting improvement, some impairment, and others, no consistent changes. Objective/hypothesis We hypothesize that to modulate cognitive function using brain stimulation, it is essential to modulate connected nodes comprising a network, rather than just alter local activity. Methods iEEG data collected while patients performed a spatiotemporal memory retrieval task were used to map frequency-specific, coherent oscillatory activity between different brain regions associated with successful memory retrieval. We used these to identify two target nodes that exhibited selectively stronger coupling for spatial vs. temporal retrieval. In a subsequent session, electrical stimulation - theta-bursts with a fixed phase-lag (0° or 180°) – was applied to the two target regions while patients performed spatiotemporal retrieval. Results Stimulation selectively impaired spatial retrieval while not affecting temporal retrieval, and this selective impairment was associated with theta decoupling of the spatial retrieval network. Conclusion These findings suggest that stimulating tightly connected nodes in a functional network at the appropriate phase-lag may effectively modulate the network function, and while in this case it impaired memory processes, it sets a foundation for further network-based perturbation studies.

Numerous studies indicate the importance of the hippocampus to temporal order retrieval. However, behavioral studies suggest that there are different ways to retrieve temporal order information from encoded sequences, one involving an associative strategy (retrieving associations using neighboring items in a list) and another involving a recency strategy (determining which of two items came first). It remains unresolved, however, whether both strategies recruit the hippocampus or only associative strategies, consistent with the hippocampus's role in relational processing. To address this, we developed a paradigm in which we dissociated associative versus recency-based retrieval, involving the same stimulus presentation during retrieval. Associative retrieval involved an increase in RT (and decrease in performance) with greater distances between intervals, consistent with the need to retrieve intervening associations. Recency-based retrieval involved an increase in RT (and decrease in performance) with shorter distances between intervals, suggesting the use of a strength-based coding mechanism to retrieve information. We employed fMRI to determine the neural basis of the different strategies. Both strategies showed significant levels of hippocampal activation and connectivity that did not differ between tasks. In contrast, both univariate and connectivity pattern analyses revealed differences in extrahippocampal areas such as parietal and frontal cortices. A covariate analysis suggested that differences could not be explained by task difficulty alone. Together, these findings suggest that the hippocampus plays a role in both forms of temporal order retrieval, with neocortical networks mediating the different cognitive demands for associative versus recency-based temporal order retrieval.