Search

Our working hypothesis is that constant interpulse interval (IPI) electrical stimulation would resonate with endogenous epileptogenic reverberating circuits, inducing seizures, whereas a random interinterval electrical stimulation protocol would promote desynchronization of such neural networks, producing an anticonvulsant effect. Male Wistar rats were stereotaxically implanted with a bipolar electrical stimulation electrode in the amygdala. Pentylenetetrazole (10 mg/ml/min) was continuously infused through an intravenous catheter to induce seizures while four different patterns of temporally coded electrical stimulation were applied: periodic stimulation (PS), pseudo-randomized IPI stimulation (LH), restrictively randomized IPI stimulation (IH), and bursts of 20-ms IPIs (burst). PS decreased the pentylenetetrazole threshold to forelimb clonus, whereas IH increased the threshold to forelimb clonus and to generalized tonic–clonic seizures. We hypothesize that PS facilitates forelimb clonus by reverberating with epileptogenic circuits in the limbic system, whereas IH delays forelimb clonus and generalized tonic–clonic seizures by desynchronizing the epileptic neural networks in the forebrain–midbrain–hindbrain circuits.

In the PTZ animal model of epilepsy, electrical stimulation applied to the amygdaloid complex may result in either pro-convulsive or anticonvulsant effect, depending on the temporal pattern used (i.e. periodic-PS and non-periodic-NPS electrical stimulation). Our hypothesis is that the anatomical target is a determinant factor for the differential effect of temporally-coded patterns on seizure outcome. The threshold dose of PTZ to elicit forelimb clonus and generalized tonic–clonic seizure behavior was measured. The effect of amygdaloid complex PS on forelimb clonus threshold showed a pro-convulsive effect while NPS was anticonvulsant. NPS also significantly increased generalized tonic–clonic threshold; while PS, although at lower threshold levels, did not present statistical significance. Thalamus stimulation did not affect forelimb clonus threshold and showed similar anticonvulsant profiles for both PS and NPS on generalized tonic–clonic threshold. In summary, the anatomical target is a determinant factor on whether temporally-coded ES differentially modulates seizure outcome.