High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation Reorganizes Cortical Cross-Frequency Coupling in a Region- and Time-Dependent Manner

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Pain management strategies have progressed beyond traditional pharmacologic and physical interventions, integrating advanced neuromodulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (hSCS). Despite its clinical efficacy, the supraspinal mechanisms underlying hSCS remain poorly understood. Prior work in sheep demonstrated that hSCS modulates gamma (γ) band (70–150 Hz) activity in the primary somatosensory and association cortices, implicating cortical involvement in pain modulation. Given, the interaction between low and high oscillations, we hypothesized that hSCS modulates γ activity in a region- and time-dependent manner through specific coupling with theta (□) rhythms (4–8 Hz). Using 96-channel subdural electrocorticography (ECoG), we computed □-γ phase–amplitude coupling (PAC) and the corresponding modulation index (MI) to quantify the effects of hSCS. While the preferred □phase of γ activity remained consistent across conditions and regions, MI increased significantly post-stimulation—most prominently in the association cortex, where robust -γ phase locking was observed. In contrast, the somatosensory cortex exhibited weaker and more variable locking. Temporally, both cortices demonstrated an early, rapid increase in MI post-hSCS, accompanied by a shift (association) and attenuation (somatosensory) of the secondary peak. These findings reveal distinct regional and temporal dynamics in PAC following hSCS and suggest complementary roles of somatosensory and association cortices in processing neuromodulatory input. hSCS appears to reorganize cortical cross-frequency interactions, supporting its role in reorganizing functional network dynamics relevant to sensory processing and the subjective pain experience.
Full text 1,901 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Pain management strategies have progressed beyond traditional pharmacologic and physical interventions, integrating advanced neuromodulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (hSCS). Despite its clinical efficacy, the supraspinal mechanisms underlying hSCS remain poorly understood. Prior work in sheep demonstrated that hSCS modulates gamma (γ) band (70–150 Hz) activity in the primary somatosensory and association cortices, implicating cortical involvement in pain modulation. Given, the interaction between low and high oscillations, we hypothesized that hSCS modulates γ activity in a region- and time-dependent manner through specific coupling with theta (□) rhythms (4–8 Hz). Using 96-channel subdural electrocorticography (ECoG), we computed □-γ phase–amplitude coupling (PAC) and the corresponding modulation index (MI) to quantify the effects of hSCS. While the preferred □phase of γ activity remained consistent across conditions and regions, MI increased significantly post-stimulation—most prominently in the association cortex, where robust -γ phase locking was observed. In contrast, the somatosensory cortex exhibited weaker and more variable locking. Temporally, both cortices demonstrated an early, rapid increase in MI post-hSCS, accompanied by a shift (association) and attenuation (somatosensory) of the secondary peak. These findings reveal distinct regional and temporal dynamics in PAC following hSCS and suggest complementary roles of somatosensory and association cortices in processing neuromodulatory input. hSCS appears to reorganize cortical cross-frequency interactions, supporting its role in reorganizing functional network dynamics relevant to sensory processing and the subjective pain experience. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00