Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Joseph T. Costello

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

2 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

2

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Exploring the trade-off between deep-learning and explainable models for brain-machine interfaces

  • Luis H. Cubillos
  • Guy Revach
  • Matthew J. Mender
  • Joseph T. Costello
  • Hisham Temmar
  • Aren Hite
  • Diksha Zutshi
  • Dylan M. Wallace

People with brain or spinal cord-related paralysis often need to rely on others for basic tasks, limiting their independence. A potential solution is brain-machine interfaces (BMIs), which could allow them to voluntarily control external devices (e. g. , robotic arm) by decoding brain activity to movement commands. In the past decade, deep-learning decoders have achieved state-of-the-art results in most BMI applications, ranging from speech production to finger control. However, the 'black-box' nature of deep-learning decoders could lead to unexpected behaviors, resulting in major safety concerns in real-world physical control scenarios. In these applications, explainable but lower-performing decoders, such as the Kalman filter (KF), remain the norm. In this study, we designed a BMI decoder based on KalmanNet, an extension of the KF that augments its operation with recurrent neural networks to compute the Kalman gain. This results in a varying “trust” that shifts between inputs and dynamics. We used this algorithm to predict finger movements from the brain activity of two monkeys. We compared KalmanNet results offline (pre-recorded data, $n=13$ days) and online (real-time predictions, $n=5$ days) with a simple KF and two recent deep-learning algorithms: tcFNN (non-ReFIT version) and LSTM. KalmanNet achieved comparable or better results than other deep learning models in offline and online modes, relying on the dynamical model for stopping while depending more on neural inputs for initiating movements. We further validated this mechanism by implementing a heteroscedastic KF that used the same strategy, and it also approached state-of-the-art performance while remaining in the explainable domain of standard KFs. However, we also see two downsides to KalmanNet. KalmanNet shares the limited generalization ability of existing deep-learning decoders, and its usage of the KF as an inductive bias limits its performance in the presence of unseen noise distributions. Despite this trade-off, our analysis successfully integrates traditional controls and modern deep-learning approaches to motivate high-performing yet still explainable BMI designs.

YNICL Journal 2021 Journal Article

Atlas-independent, N-of-1 tissue activation modeling to map optimal regions of subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease

  • Karlo A. Malaga
  • Joseph T. Costello
  • Kelvin L. Chou
  • Parag G. Patil

BACKGROUND: Motor outcomes after subthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) vary considerably among patients and strongly depend on stimulation location. The objective of this retrospective study was to map the regions of optimal STN DBS for PD using an atlas-independent, fully individualized (N-of-1) tissue activation modeling approach and to assess the relationship between patient-level therapeutic volumes of tissue activation (VTAs) and motor improvement. METHODS: The stimulation-induced electric field for 40 PD patients treated with bilateral STN DBS was modeled using finite element analysis. Neurostimulation models were generated for each patient, incorporating their individual STN anatomy, DBS lead position and orientation, anisotropic tissue conductivity, and clinical stimulation settings. A voxel-based analysis of the VTAs was then used to map the optimal location of stimulation. The amount of stimulation in specific regions relative to the STN was measured and compared between STNs with more and less optimal stimulation, as determined by their motor improvement scores and VTA. The relationship between VTA location and motor outcome was then assessed using correlation analysis. Patient variability in terms of STN anatomy, active contact position, and VTA location were also evaluated. Results from the N-of-1 model were compared to those from a simplified VTA model. RESULTS: Tissue activation modeling mapped the optimal location of stimulation to regions medial, posterior, and dorsal to the STN centroid. These regions extended beyond the STN boundary towards the caudal zona incerta (cZI). The location of the VTA and active contact position differed significantly between STNs with more and less optimal stimulation in the dorsal-ventral and anterior-posterior directions. Therapeutic stimulation spread noticeably more in the dorsal and posterior directions, providing additional evidence for cZI as an important DBS target. There were significant linear relationships between the amount of dorsal and posterior stimulation, as measured by the VTA, and motor improvement. These relationships were more robust than those between active contact position and motor improvement. There was high variability in STN anatomy, active contact position, and VTA location among patients. Spherical VTA modeling was unable to reproduce these results and tended to overestimate the size of the VTA. CONCLUSION: Accurate characterization of the spread of stimulation is needed to optimize STN DBS for PD. High variability in neuroanatomy, stimulation location, and motor improvement among patients highlights the need for individualized modeling techniques. The atlas-independent, N-of-1 tissue activation modeling approach presented in this study can be used to develop and evaluate stimulation strategies to improve clinical outcomes on an individual basis.

v2026.09.13