Abstract
Evaluating and responding to new information requires cognitive control. Here, we studied novelty-response mechanisms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). In PD patient-volunteers, we recorded from cortical circuits with scalp-based electroencephalography (EEG) and from subcortical circuits using intraoperative neurophysiology during surgeries for implantation of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes. We report three major results. First, novel auditory stimuli triggered midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms, which were attenuated in PD patients but were not linked with cognitive function or novelty-associated slowing. Second, 32% of subthalamic nucleus (STN) neurons were response-modulated; nearly all (94%) of these were also modulated by novel stimuli. Finally, response-modulated STN neurons were coherent with midfrontal low- frequency activity. These findings link scalp-based measurements of neural activity with neuronal activity in the STN. Our results provide insight into midfrontal cognitive control mechanisms and how hyperdirect circuits evaluate new information.
Significance statement Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder with motor and cognitive symptoms. Here we studied how the brain recruits cognitive control in response to new information. We found that PD patients have decreased cortical low-frequency oscillations linked to cognitive control. We also examined single neurons in PD patients in a deep brain structure called the subthalamic nucleus, and found that response-modulated neurons were uniquely modulated by novelty and they fired in-phase with these same low-frequency brain oscillations. Our work helps illustrate how neural circuits evaluate new information, which could be relevant for PD as well as other diseases that disrupt cognition.
INTRODUCTION
New information requires careful consideration. Indeed, when the brain evaluates novel information it recruits cognitive-control processes reflected by bursts of midfrontal low- frequency 1-8 Hz activity (Cavanagh & Frank, 2014; Solís-Vivanco et al., 2018). In the prefrontal cortex, our group and others have shown that these bursts of midfrontal activity engage single neurons encoding cognitive functions (Kim et al., 2017; Kim & Narayanan, 2019; Mikell et al., 2014; Narayanan et al., 2013). This interaction between cortical oscillations and single neurons may orchestrate the arc from extrinsic perceptions to intrinsic responses. Human diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) involve slowed or profoundly disrupted movements; however, it is unknown how stimulus-related factors such as novelty interact with motor responses. In this study, we studied midfrontal cognitive-control processes in PD via novelty- related processes.
One paradigm used to study the link between novel stimuli and responses is the oddball task. In this task, participants must respond to a commonly-occurring, standard stimulus on most trials. When novel stimuli are presented, the orienting response causes motor slowing (Sokolov, 1962) and elicits control processes (Fan, 2014). In electroencephalography (EEG) studies, novel stimuli and the subsequent orienting response evoke characteristic event-related potential (ERP) signatures in the midfrontal cortex (Debener et al., 2005; Polich, 2007; Ranganath & Rainer, 2003). Novelty-induced orienting can be considered a sub-feature of control. Cortical responses to novel stimuli involve midfrontal low-frequency oscillations between 1-8 Hz. Cavanagh and Frank (2014) proposed that these midfrontal oscillations reflect the recruitment of cognitive- control processes, however, the precise bands and topography of novelty-related slowing, particularly in PD patients, is unclear. Frontal activity may serve as a mechanism by which neurons exert top-down control across the brain (Cavanagh & Frank, 2014), including subcortical networks in the basal ganglia (Zink et al., 2006). These subcortical basal ganglia networks can be modulated by novelty; indeed, a human intraoperative study by Mikell and colleagues (2014) found that subcortical neurons in the substantia nigra increased firing more following infrequent novel sounds than frequent standard sounds.
We and others have found consistent evidence that PD attenuates midfrontal 1-8 Hz activity during attentional orienting, conflict, interval timing, and responses to startling stimuli (Cavanagh et al., 2018; K.-H. Chen et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2018; Lange et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2018, 2021; Solís-Vivanco et al., 2018). Furthermore, we have found that during interval timing midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms are coherent with field potentials in the subthalamic nucleus (STN) (Kelley et al., 2018). Notably, Singh and colleagues (2021) found that attenuated ∼4-Hz EEG oscillatory activity during interval timing was predictive of cognition as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), suggesting that the recruitment of midfrontal ∼4-Hz oscillations reflects general cognitive-control processes. These data lead to the hypothesis that midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms engage subcortical networks in response to novelty.
We tested this idea by first comparing midfrontal EEG during an oddball task between PD patients and healthy older adult subjects (Andrés et al., 2006; Escera et al., 1998; Parmentier et al., 2008, 2010). In addition, we recorded midfrontal EEG and intracranial STN neurons during an intraoperative oddball task in PD patients undergoing DBS implantation surgery. We report three main findings. First, we found that PD patients had decreased midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms compared to controls; however, these rhythms did not correlate with cognitive status or novelty- related slowing. Second, we found that neurons in the STN were strongly response-modulated rather than cue-modulated, and most response-modulated STN neurons were influenced by novelty. Third, we found that midfrontal low-frequency oscillations were coherent with response-modulated STN neurons. These data provide insight into how novel information engages a midfrontal cognitive control system, and how this system in turn contributes to a hyperdirect subcortical mechanism for response control.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
This investigation included both an EEG experiment and an intraoperative neurophysiology experiment. For the EEG experiment, we recruited PD patient-volunteers and demographically- similar control participants (see Table 1). PD patients were recruited through the Movement Disorders clinic at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). Healthy older adults were recruited to serve as control participants from either the Seniors Together in Aging Research (STAR) registry or a list of people who previously participated in research in our lab and agreed to be contacted for new research opportunities. Participants were considered healthy if they did not have any neurological and psychological diseases or disorders. Participants were recruited by email or phone and received compensation of $30/hour. All procedures were approved by the University of Iowa (UI) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (#201707828).
In parallel with the EEG experiment, we recruited 18 PD patient-volunteers who had elected to undergo bilateral STN deep brain stimulation (DBS) implantation surgery (see Table 2). These participants were recruited over a time period of 1.5 years (July 2019–August 2020). Within the study period there was a 5-month pause in enrollment due to research suspension during the COVID-19 crisis. Patients were asked during preoperative clinical sessions (1–14 days prior to surgery) whether they were interested in participating in research during their DBS implantation surgery. If they agreed, a researcher separate from the surgical team discussed the research protocols with them, obtained informed consent, and completed a brief practice session of the task. All intraoperative research procedures were approved by the UI IRB (#201402730). All patients were tested on levodopa as our past work has shown that levodopa does not reliably modulate midfrontal ∼4 Hz rhythms (Singh et al., 2018, 2021). Levodopa-equivalent doses (LEDD) are presented in Table 2.
Oddball task for EEG experiment
We assessed the response to novelty using a version of the cross-modal oddball distractor task (Andrés et al., 2006; Escera et al., 1998; Parmentier et al., 2008, 2010; Parmentier & Hebrero, 2013). This task was presented using the PsychToolbox-3 functions (Brainard, 1997; Kleiner et al., 2007; Pelli, 1997, http://psychtoolbox.org/) in MATLAB 2018b on either a Linux or Windows computer. Task-specific audio was played through Dell Rev A01 speakers positioned on either side of the monitor. Responses were made with the left and right index fingers on a standard QWERTY USB-keyboard. In addition to the cross-modal oddball distractor task, participants completed additional cognitive and motor tasks, as well as detailed neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric assessments as part of other protocols (Singh et al., 2018, 2021).
Our version of the cross-modal oddball distractor task involved a choice reaction-time task in which a white arrow appeared in the center of a black screen, and the participant was required to press the key that corresponded with the direction of the arrow (“q” for left arrow, “p” for right arrow) as quickly as possible. The appearance of the arrow was preceded by an audio-visual cue by 500 ms (either the standard cue or the distractor cue). Participants were instructed that this cue would appear 500 ms before the target stimulus (white arrow), and they were told that the cue would be a green circle and a short tone (600-Hz sine wave tone lasting 200 ms). The audio- visual cue was followed by the target arrow (Figure 1A). Participants had to respond within 1 s, after which the fixation cross reappeared and the next trial started after a variable inter-trial interval between 500–1000 ms.
Participants completed a brief practice of the task (10 trials), which had all the familiar standard cues described above. Following the practice, participants completed four blocks of 60 trials each, for a total of 240 trials. Of the 240 trials, 80% contained the standard cues as described above, 10% contained an unexpected auditory oddball cue (non-repeating, randomly- created sine wave that sounded like a birdcall or robotic noise lasting 200 ms in duration) in place of the expected tone, and 10% contained an unexpected visual oddball cue (unique shape/color combination) in place of the green circle. Because visual stimuli were not presented during intraoperative research, only auditory oddball trials were analyzed.
EEG recordings
EEG recordings were performed according to methods described in detail previously (Singh et al., 2020, 2021). Briefly, we used a 64-channel EEG actiCAP (Brain Products GmbH) with a 0.1-Hz high-pass filter and a sampling frequency of 500 Hz. We used electrode Pz as reference and electrode FPz as the ground. EEG activity was referenced according to the procedures described in Singh et al., (2020, 2021). Briefly, an additional channel was recorded at the mid- inion region (Iz), and we removed unreliable Fp1, Fp2, FT9, FT10, TP9, and TP10 channels, resulting in 59 channels for pre- and post-processing. Data were epoched around the cues from - 1000 ms to 2500 ms peri-cue.
Bad channels and bad epochs were identified using the FASTER algorithm (Nolan et al., 2010) and the pop_rejchan function from EEGLAB, and were then interpolated and rejected respectively. On average, 1.6 ± 0.9 channels per subject were removed, and Cz was never removed during preprocessing. Eye blink contaminants were removed following independent component analysis (ICA).
Event-related potentials (ERPs) were low-pass-filtered at 20 Hz for analyses. Our primary interest was in ∼4-Hz midfrontal rhythms; consequently, we utilized time-frequency analyses. We computed spectral measures by multiplying the fast Fourier transformed (FFT) power spectrum of single-trial EEG data with the FFT power spectrum of a set of complex Morlet wavelets (defined as a Gaussian-windowed complex sine wave: ei2πtfe-t^2/(2xσ^2), where t=time and f=frequency). Wavelets increased from 1–50 Hz in 50 logarithmically-spaced steps, which defined the width of each frequency band, increasing from 3–10 cycles between 1–50 Hz and taking the inverse FFT (Cohen, 2014). The end result of this process was identical to time- domain signal convolution, and it resulted in estimates of instantaneous power (the magnitude of the analytic signal) and phase angle (the arctangent of the analytic signal). We then cut the length of each signal accordingly for each trial (-500 ms to 1000 ms). These short temporal epochs reflect the wavelet-weighted influence of longer time and frequency periods. Power was normalized by converting to a decibel (dB) scale (10*log10(powert/powerbaseline)), allowing us to directly compare the effects across frequency bands. The baseline for each frequency was calculated by averaging power from -300 ms to -200 ms prior to cue onset (Singh et al., 2018, 2020, 2021). A 100 ms duration is often used as an effective baseline since pixel-wise time- frequency data points have already been resolved over smoothed temporal and frequency dimensions with the wavelets. For plotting purposes only, statistical-cluster-based thresholding (minimum cluster-size of 500 pixels) was used to visualize areas where temporal-frequency power differed between controls and PD patients (Figure 2D, black contours). Our previous work has focused on diminished midfrontal cue-triggered ∼4-Hz rhythms in PD, although we have observed differences across 1-8 Hz depending on the specific demands elicited by the task (e.g. 1-4 Hz novelty vs. 4-8 Hz control-related processes) (K.H. Chen et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2017; Narayanan et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2018, 2020, 2021).
Oddball task for intraoperative neurophysiology
We used an auditory version of a 3-tone oddball task during intraoperative human neurophysiology to capture the response to novelty in the operating room during DBS-electrode implantation surgeries. This task is ideal for research for intraoperative patients whose heads are in a stereotaxic frame during multielectrode recordings because, 1) it is in the auditory domain and does not require a monitor for visual stimuli, 2) it is relatively simple in that it requires a motor response to tones, and 3) several trials can be collected in a few minutes. Similar 3-tone designs have been used previously (Debener et al., 2005), in which novelty is probed with novel tones. All stimuli were auditory and presented at an appropriate volume through earbuds or external speaker to be clearly heard over operating room noise. The task and stimuli were presented using PsychToolbox-3 in MATLAB 2018b on a Windows laptop. Responses were made with a Kinesis pedal that the patients held in their hands. Participants pressed buttons with their thumbs to respond.
For the 3-tone oddball task, each trial consisted of one of the following sounds being played: a standard tone that occurred frequently (500 Hz: 50% of trials), a target sound that occurred infrequently (the word “Go”: 30% of trials; this trial type was used to maintain attention), or a novel tone (unique birdcall: 20% of trials; Figure 3A). Patients were instructed to press with their left hand (typically thumb) if they heard the word “Go,” and to press with their right hand/thumb if they heard anything else. We focused our analyses on the standard and the novel tones, as patients responded with their right hand for both the standard tones and the novel oddball tones, facilitating a direct comparison of novelty induced motor initiation. Patients practiced the task with 30 trials preoperatively and again on the morning of surgery. The intraoperative experiment was conducted after the clinically-necessary microelectrode recording electrodes were confirmed to be in the STN based on clinical recordings.
Intraoperative neurophysiology recordings
Bilateral DBS electrodes were implanted sequentially during a single stereotactic procedure. Participants received short-acting pain relief and sedative medications such as remifentanil and/or dexmedetomidine; these were stopped >1 hour prior to the task for participants to be maximally awake for necessary clinical testing and participation in research. Patients underwent standard bilateral DBS lead implantations using indirect framed stereotactic STN targeting, refined by microelectrode recordings from 0.4 to 0.8 mΩ tungsten electrodes (Alpha-Omega, Inc). Three simultaneous microelectrode recording tracks were used, consisting of anterior, middle, and posterior trajectories, separated by 2 mm center-to-center from an entry point near the coronal suture. STN margins were defined by the functional and electrical properties from these microelectrode recordings, in line with standard clinical practice. Because microelectrode recordings were clinically necessary, participants were not exposed to extra electrode penetrations to participate in the study.
In addition to STN recordings, scalp EEG was also simultaneously recorded in the operating room during the oddball task. Prior to the start of surgery, three midfrontal EEG electrodes (Cadwell Industries, Inc) were placed over frontal locations on the forehead at the hairline with right and left electrodes approximating F1 and F2 and midfrontal lead approximating Fz (Figure 4A). A reference electrode was placed on the left mastoid. We recorded EEG because this location indexes midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms and is in line with prior work (K.-H. Chen et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2018; Narayanan et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2021). EEG recordings were recorded at 24 kHz and subsequently downsampled to 500 Hz. Signal was filtered below 50 Hz with a low-pass filter, followed by a 1-Hz high-pass filter. Microelectrode recordings were sampled at 24 kHz, amplified, and filtered for single neurons (1–8 kHz) and STN local field potentials (<200 Hz). Neurophysiological and behavioral data were acquired simultaneously using a Tucker-Davis Technologies multi-channel data acquisition system.
After the experiments, Offline Sorter (Plexon) was used to analyze STN activity and remove artifacts. Spike activity was analyzed for all cells that fired at rates above 0.1 Hz. Principal component analysis (PCA) and waveform shape were used for spike sorting. Single units were defined as those 1) having a consistent waveform shape, 2) being a separable cluster in PCA space, and 3) having a consistent refractory period of at least 2 ms in interspike interval histograms. Isolated STN single units were included for analyses if 1) the recording location was confirmed by the neurosurgeon to be in the STN based on clinically-necessary and observable STN firing patterns during surgery, and 2) the unit was held throughout the duration of the task.
Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses
All data and statistical approaches were reviewed by the UI Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Core at the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science. All code and data are available at narayanan.lab.uiowa.edu. For demographic summary statistics, medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for continuous measures. Counts and percentages were calculated for categorical measures. EEG participant demographics were stratified by group and gender. Intraoperative patient-volunteer demographics were stratified by gender. We used the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test to test for differences in age, education, and MoCA between strata. For behavioral data, we used a linear mixed-effects model with random intercept for participants’ response time to capture the effects of predictor variables (tone type: standard vs novel tones and group: PD vs control) on response time. For behavioral data for the intraoperative task, we used the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test to test for differences between different sound stimuli on accuracy and reaction time. For EEG data, we used a linear mixed-effects model with random intercept for participants’ time-frequency power to compare average time-frequency-power between groups. The fixed-effect predictors included group, tone type, MoCA score, and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part 3 as control variables and time-frequency power from the a priori region of interest (ROI) as the outcome variable. We set our alpha for these analyses at 0.05. The MoCA score was included in the model as a covariate given that it was different between groups. UPDRS Part 3 was included as a covariate for PD subjects in order to account for degree of motor impairment. These analyses were conducted in R.
Neuronal modulations were defined via a generalized linear model (GLM) for each neuron, where the outcome variable was firing rate, and the predictor variable was cue or response, consistent with past work (Emmons et al., 2019, 2020). For each neuron, we constructed a model in which the outcome variable was the firing rate binned at 0.1 seconds, and the predictor variable was either cue or response. Main effects comparisons were made stratified by neuron. Across the ensemble, p values were corrected via Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery-rate (FDR; Benjamini & Yekutieli, 2001), with p values <0.05 considered significant modulation for each neuron. We also analyzed neuronal patterns using PCA of peri-event histograms around response binned at 0.1 second with kernel-density estimates (bandwidth 0.25). Finally, we analyzed midfrontal EEG-STN coherence with the Neurospec 2.0 coherence toolbox using the sp2a_m1 function with a segment power of 9 and a window size of 250 ms. To compare coherence across neurons with different spike rates and trial numbers, spike-field coherence was scaled such that the raw spike-field coherence of each neuron was divided by the 95% confidence interval for each neuron. According to this metric, a “1” represents coherence at the 95% confidence interval. These analyses were performed in MATLAB.
RESULTS
Demographics
Table 1 shows demographics for the EEG study and Table 2 shows demographics for the intraoperative study. For EEG participants, demographic results were stratified by group and gender. Wilcoxon test results showed that the groups were not significantly different in terms of age (p=0.38, effect size r=0.10) or years of education (p=0.09, effect size r=0.20). The MoCA score was higher for the control subjects compared to PD subjects (p<0.01, effect size r=0.36), thus we accounted for MoCA in our analyses.
PD patients had slowed reaction-times during novelty-related distraction
We studied how novelty engaged cortical cognitive control mechanisms by recording EEG during the cross-modal oddball distractor task (Figure 1). This task asks participants to respond to a target cue (arrow) following either a familiar stimulus (600-Hz tone) or a novel stimulus consisting of complex and unique auditory features.
Accuracy was high overall (Median (1st Quartile–3rd Quartile); Control: standard 99.4% (99%-100%), novel 100% (100%-100%); PD: standard 98.2% (93.3%-99.4%), novel 97.9% (92-100%)), although control participants were more accurate than PD patients (F(1,73)=11.1, p=0.001). There was no main effect of tone type (F(1,73)=0.39, p=0.54), and no interaction between group and tone type (F(1,73)=1.61, p=0.21). Regarding response speed, on trials with a distracting novel tone, control subjects responded approximately the same as on trials with a standard tone (Median (1st Quartile–3rd Quartile); Control: novel 454 ms (426-514), standard 454 ms (426-531 ms)), whereas PD patients responded more slowly compared to trials with a standard tone (PD: novel 505 ms (439-571 ms), standard 462 ms (416-515 ms); Figure 1B).
There was a significant main effect of tone type (F(1,73)=22.4 p<0.001), but this appears to be driven by the effect within the PD group. There was no significant effect of Control vs. PD on reaction time (F(1,73)=1.0, p=0.32); however, there was a significant interaction between the effects of group and tone type on reaction time (F(1,73)=6.0, p=0.02). Post-hoc analyses revealed that within the PD group, there was a significant difference between reaction times for the tone types (t(73)=-6.2, p<0.0001). No other post hoc contrast was significant.
Finally, we found that novelty-related slowing was not related to cognitive function, as measured by MoCA (Spearman ρ=-0.15, p=0.19; Figure 1C), or motor function, as measured by UPDRS Part 3 in PD patients (Spearman ρ=0.10, p=0.50; Figure 1D). Taken together, these data suggest that PD patients were more distracted by novel stimuli than controls.
PD patients had attenuated ∼4-Hz midfrontal rhythms
Next, we examined cortical correlates of cognitive control in response to novelty. We found that ERPs were distinct between controls and PD patients, with PD patients showing smaller negative deflections around 100 ms and 300 ms for standard tone trials (Figure 2A, top panel) and smaller negative deflections around 100 ms and 200 ms for novel tone trials (Figure 2A, bottom panel). In all participants, novel tone trials showed a late (>300 ms) positive component compared to the leveling off observed in the standard tone trials (e.g. the “P3a”). This positive deflection appeared to be higher for PD subjects than control subjects; however, the possibility of an underlying low-frequency contribution across the entire ERP in PD subjects suggests that time-frequency analysis might be more effective in isolating unique temporal events that differ between groups.
We examined power from an a priori tf-ROI (4-8 Hz for 300-400 ms post-tones; blue box in Figure 2D). Our linear mixed-effects model revealed a significant effect of tone type on this tf- ROI (F(1,73)=51.1, p<0.001), with novel trials showing higher 4-8 Hz band power. However, there were no significant main effects of group, MoCA, or UPDRS Part 3, and there was not a significant interaction between group and trial condition (F(1,73)=3.7, p=0.06). We found that there was no significant relationship between midfrontal ∼4-Hz power and novelty-related slowing (Spearman ρ=-0.16, p=0.17), indicating that average ∼4-Hz power across novelty trials may not directly translate to performance on this task. Further, ∼4-Hz power in our tf-ROI on novel trials did not correlate significantly with MoCA (Spearman ρ=0.13, p=0.28) or UPDRS Part 3 (for PD group only; Spearman ρ=-0.24, p=0.10), suggesting that midfrontal activity during this task may not be associated with general cognitive functioning or affected by PD motor symptoms. These data are convergent with our past work showing that that midfrontal ∼4- Hz rhythms signify cues and are distinct in PD, but are not specifically linked with response control.
Human single STN neurons were modulated around responses to novelty
To comprehensively investigate the cortico-striatal pathways underling novelty-modulated responses, we leveraged intraoperative neurophysiology to record from single STN neurons. Participants performed the task with a median accuracy of 87% (Q1-Q3: 82%-92%); there was no difference in median accuracy or reaction time between tone types (accuracy: standard 86% (77%-93%), novel 90% (80%-95%), p=0.21, effect size r=0.71; reaction time: standard 877 ms (721-1024 ms), novel 875 ms (761-936 ms), p=0.99, effect size r=0.71; Figure 3B).
With these 18 participants, we also performed intraoperative scalp EEG (Figure 4A). Although these recording locations were anterior to the midfrontal areas which showed peak ∼4- Hz activity in the EEG experiment outside the operating room (i.e. Figure 2E), we were able to capture midfrontal cue-related ∼4-Hz activity during trials with standard tones from the intraoperative participants (Figure 4B). We did not identify strong novelty-related midfrontal ∼4-Hz activity (Figure 4C), although a poorer signal-to-noise ratio due to intraoperative limitations may have particularly affected responses to novel stimuli wherein trial numbers were lower.
We identified 54 well-isolated STN neurons from 17 of the 18 participants (1 did not have STN neuronal recordings; Figure 4D-E). We defined modulations via neuron-by-neuron GLMs of firing rate vs. all cues and responses at a trial-by-trial level. We found that 5 of the 54 neurons (9%) were significantly modulated around the cue. By contrast, we found significantly more neurons (17 of 54, 32%) with response-related activity (χ2=8.2; p=0.004; Figure 4E & Figure 5A–B). To further characterize the patterns of neuronal activity, we utilized PCA, a proven, data- driven technique, to characterize neuronal activity (Chapin & Nicolelis, 1999; Narayanan & Laubach, 2009). We found that the first component (principal component 1; PC1) explained 38.5% of variance and appeared to be modulated around response; PC2 explained 28.5% of variance and was modulated prior to response (Figure 5C-D). These results provide convergent evidence from two distinct analytic approaches (GLM and PCA) that STN neurons were strongly response modulated.
Next, we were interested in how response-related activity was modulated by novel cues. Strikingly, we found that nearly all (16 of 17; 94%; Figure 6B) response-related neurons had differential activity with novel cues as quantified by an FDR-corrected neuron-by-neuron GLM of event type on response-related activity. Thus, these data indicate that STN response-related activity was powerfully modulated by novelty.
Response-related STN neurons had low-frequency coherence with midfrontal EEG
Finally, we were interested in the relationship between STN neuronal activity with scalp EEG-related modulations. We examined spike-field coherence, through which we could link the activity of midfrontal scalp electrodes to STN spiking (Kim & Narayanan, 2019; Narayanan et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2014, 2015). For some STN neurons, we noticed that spikes fired in- phase with low-frequency scalp EEG activity (Figure 7A). Among response-related STN neurons, we noticed significant low-frequency spike-field scalp-STN coherence after the cue around the time of responses (Figure 7B). Around responses, low-frequency coherence was stronger for response-related neurons compared to non-response-related neurons (Figure 7C vs 7B; scaled spike-field coherence for response neurons: 1.1(0.5-1.8) vs. non-response neurons 0.3(0.1-0.7); Wilcoxon rank sum p=0.003; effect size r=0.40). These data provide evidence that STN response-related activity could reflect frontal top-down novelty-induced orienting and control. Together, these data support the idea that novelty can trigger midfrontal low-frequency rhythms, which in turn engage subcortical STN circuits involved in response control.
Discussion
In this study, we combined scalp-based EEG and intraoperative recordings to examine novelty-related brain activity in frontal-subcortical circuits. We report three main results: 1) Both PD and control participants engaged low-frequency power in response to novel stimuli, but, compared to control participants, PD patients had an attenuated midfrontal response ∼4-Hz (although this activity was not linked with novelty-related slowing or cognitive status); 2) STN neurons were strongly modulated by novel responses, and 3) STN response-related neurons exhibited low frequency coherence with midfrontal EEG activity. Our findings provide a better understanding of midfrontal-STN cognitive control systems in PD and neuronal responses to novel information.
Midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms are prominently triggered by events that recruit cognitive control such as errors, conflict, feedback, and novelty (Cavanagh & Frank, 2014; Cohen & Donner, 2013; Singh et al., 2018). Our past work found that this response is highly conserved in humans and rodents, and cortical dopamine is critical for coupling of cortical neurons with low-frequency oscillations (Narayanan et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2015). Taken together, our data support the idea that midfrontal low-frequency rhythms recruit neuronal resources to respond to new information.
Our work here is in line with past studies from our group and others showing that PD patients have attenuated midfrontal rhythms between 1-8 Hz (Cavanagh et al., 2018; K.-H. Chen et al., 2016; Giller et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2018, 2021; Solís-Vivanco et al., 2018). This line of work includes data from the Simon reaction-time task (Singh et al., 2018), interval timing tasks (Singh et al., 2021), and working memory manipulations (Itthipuripat et al., 2013). Our past work has found that midfrontal 1-4 Hz frequencies are attenuated in PD (Kim et al., 2017; Parker et al., 2014) and strongly correlated with cognitive function during an interval timing task (Singh et al., 2021), although in the present study, these bands were novelty-specific but not reliably distinct between control and PD patients (Figure 2, bottom panel and 2D). By contrast, we found that novelty-triggered midfrontal 4-8 Hz oscillations were attenuated in PD but did not correlate with novelty-related slowing. There are multiple generators of mid-frontal low-frequency activity (Zuure et al., 2020), and it is possible that lower frequencies (1-4 Hz) are more commonly evoked by an orienting response (Cavanagh et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2015; Wessel et al., 2016), and higher frequencies (5-8 Hz) represent performance-related cognitive control (Cavanagh & Frank, 2014; Cohen & Donner, 2013; Singh et al., 2018; Töllner et al., 2017; Zuure et al., 2020).
We found that response-modulated STN neuronal activity was coherent with these lower frequencies 1-4 Hz. Our work is consistent with prior studies of STN neural activity; indeed, Bockova and colleagues (2011) found that the STN was modulated by distractor stimuli with a positive ERP peak around 200 ms, and Brittain and colleagues (2012) found that response inhibition is associated with STN activity, which serves to suppress motor-related output from the basal ganglia. The low-frequency coherence we found is consistent with recent studies that revealed that oscillations in the STN during conflict are driven by midfrontal 2-7 Hz activity (Cavanagh et al., 2011, 2017; Zavala et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2021). It is possible that multiple cortical 4-8 Hz theta features could couple with lower-frequency (∼2 Hz) STN oscillations, resulting in a novelty-induced slowing mechanism. This could suggest that the cortex has more sophisticated information integration whereas the STN could more simply carry out reactive responses to novelty (e.g. stop & orient). Multiple studies have indirectly demonstrated connectivity between the frontal cortex and the STN in a pathway known as the hyperdirect pathway (Brunenberg et al., 2012; Haynes & Haber, 2013). This pathway was described by Nambu and colleagues (2002) as a cortico-subthalamo-pallidal pathway involved in motor control and output. Intraoperative stimulation studies have demonstrated monosynaptic hyperdirect connectivity (W. Chen et al., 2020; Kelley et al., 2018; Miocinovic et al., 2018; Walker et al., 2012). It is possible that STN-midfrontal spike-field coherence is a result of either hyperdirect connectivity or feed-forward activity via the basal ganglia indirect pathway, or both. Experimentally teasing these contributions apart may require experiments in nonhuman systems in which basal ganglia pathways can be reversibly inactivated while recording from STN neurons.
Our data help us understand how PD impacts novelty-related responses. Previous studies have shown that PD patients present with impaired habituation over repeated stimulus presentations, and that attenuated midfrontal theta activity is related to the rate of startle habituation (Cavanagh et al., 2018; K.H. Chen et al., 2016). Importantly, EEG habituation to novelty can effectively classify PD patients (Cavanagh et al., 2018). In our study, PD patients were not as successful as controls at quickly reorienting to the task at hand when presented with distracting novel stimuli. We found that PD patients also demonstrated reduced novelty-related frontal theta oscillations compared to controls (although theta power was not directly related to behavioral response speed). These findings suggest that structural and functional changes related to PD affect the circuitry that evaluates and responds to novel stimuli.
Our work has several limitations. First, intraoperative recordings present many challenges, including a lack of control over the experimental environment. In particular, our intracranial EEG used adhesive electrodes and the electrode placement was somewhat anterior to the peak of midfrontal ∼4-Hz activity our whole scalp EEG experiment captured (i.e. Figure 2E). These factors may have affected our signal-to-noise ratio, particularly on novel trials with low trial numbers. Because STN single-unit recordings occur in PD patients with attenuated novelty- triggered midfrontal ∼4-Hz rhythms, it is unknown how our STN findings generalize to non-PD patients or patients with other brain diseases that disrupt frontostriatal circuits. Finally, our a priori approach focused on a midfrontal ∼4-Hz region-of-interest, which did not perfectly overlap with data-driven novelty-related differences in controls vs. PD patients.
Overall, we found evidence for a ∼4-Hz stimulus-response arc between the frontal cortex and STN during novelty. Our findings align with recent work demonstrating clinical relevance of midfrontal ∼4-Hz activity in PD (Singh et al., 2021; Solís-Vivanco et al., 2018). Further, small studies have revealed that STN low-frequency (∼4–5 Hz) stimulation can beneficially impact conflict (Scangos et al., 2017) and interval timing (Kelley et al., 2018). These findings in humans are further supported by evidence from animal models of PD showing that highly-specific low- frequency stimulation can improve interval timing (Kim et al., 2017; Kim & Narayanan, 2019). It is possible, though it remains to be demonstrated in humans, that stimulating the STN at 4 Hz resolves impaired midfrontal ∼4-Hz oscillatory activity. Restoring behaviorally-relevant ∼4-Hz oscillations may contribute directly to improved cognitive performance. Future research should systematically evaluate this mechanism in humans.
Overall, the current studies show that novelty-related distraction is more evident in PD subjects compared to controls, that PD patients engage less novelty-related theta power, that neurons in the STN are modulated around responses to novelty, and that neurons in the STN and the midfrontal cortex have low-frequency coherence around responses to novelty. Our data illuminate how novelty modulates ∼4-Hz rhythms in hyperdirect circuits, which may provide insight into neuronal responses to novelty and PD-related changes in cognitive control. This work may be significant in the development of novel biomarkers or treatments for PD and other brain diseases degrading basal ganglia circuits.
Contributions
RC, NN, JFC, and JG conceived and designed experiments; RC and AE recorded EEG data; RC and JG performed intraoperative recordings; AS, RC, JFC, and NN wrote analysis code; RC, JFC, NN, and JG wrote the paper; and JB independently checked the data.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Haiming Chen, Youngcho Kim, Derrick Okine, Jan Wessel, Darcy Diesberg, and Tobin Dykstra for technical contributions and helpful discussions. This work was funded by NINDS R01 NS100849-01A1 to NN/JG/JFC and NIA F32 AG069445-01 to RC. This study was supported in part by the University of Iowa Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, which is granted with Clinical and Translational Science Award funds from the National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002537).
Footnotes
The authors declare no competing financial interests.