ReviewFrontiers in neurology2014
Penfield's Prediction: A Mechanism for Deep Brain Stimulation.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling Functional Architecture of Human Thalamus: AStereoelectroencephalography Study.MedComm · 2026Article
- DBS in the restoration of motor functional recovery following spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- A vertigo network derived from human brain lesions and brain stimulation.Brain communications · 2023Article
- Low frequency deep brain stimulation in the inferior colliculus ameliorates haloperidol-induced catalepsy and reduces anxiety in rats.PloS one · 2020Article
- Entorhinal Cortical Deep Brain Stimulation Rescues Memory Deficits in Both Young and Old Mice Genetically Engineered to Model Alzheimer's Disease.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2017Article
- Neurophysiology and neural engineering: a review.Journal of neurophysiology · 2017Review
- Brain Stimulation in Addiction.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextDespite its widespread use, the precise mechanism of action of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) therapy remains unknown. The modern urgency to publish more and new data can obscure previously learned lessons by the giants who have preceded us and whose shoulders we now stand upon. Wilder Penfield extensively studied the effects of artificial electrical brain stimulation and his comments on the subject are still very relevant today. In particular, he noted two very different (and seemingly opposite) effects of stimulation within the human brain. In some structures, artificial electrical stimulation has an effect, which mimics ablation, while, in other structures, it produces a stimulatory effect on that tissue. HYPOTHESIS: The hypothesis of this paper is fourfold. First, it proposes that some neural circuits are widely synchronized with other neural circuits, while some neural circuits are unsynchronized and operate independently. Second, it proposes that artificial high-frequency electrical stimulation of a synchronized neural circuit results in an ablative effect, but artificial high-frequency electrical stimulation of an unsynchronized neural circuit results in a stimulatory effect. Third, it suggests a part of the mechanism by which large-scale physiologic synchronization of widely distributed independently processed information streams may occur. This may be the neural mechanism underlying Penfield's "centrencephalic system," which he emphasized so many years ago. Fourth, it outlines the specific anatomic distribution of this physiologic synchronization, which Penfield has already clearly delineated as the distribution of his centrencephalic system. EVIDENCE: This paper draws on a brief overview of previous theory regarding the mechanism of action of DBS and on historical, as well as widely known modern clinical data regarding the observed effects of stimulation delivered to various targets within the brain. Basic science investigations, which support the hypothesis are also cited.
conclusionThis paper proposes a novel hypothesis for the mechanism of action of DBS, which was conceptually foreshadowed by Wilder Penfield decades ago.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.