SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Cross-Frequency Coupling and Intelligent Neuromodulation.

Cyborg Bionic Syst · 2023-05-31

DOI: 10.34133/cbsystems.0034PMID: 37266026

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Cross-frequency coupling (CFC) reflects (nonlinear) interactions between signals of different frequencies. Evidence from both patient and healthy participant studies suggests that CFC plays an essential role in neuronal computation, interregional interaction, and disease pathophysiology. The present review discusses methodological advances and challenges in the computation of CFC with particular emphasis on potential solutions to spurious coupling, inferring intrinsic rhythms in a targeted frequency band, and causal interferences. We specifically focus on the literature exploring CFC in the context of cognition/memory tasks, sleep, and neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and Parkinson's disease. Furthermore, we highlight the implication of CFC in the context and for the optimization of invasive and noninvasive neuromodulation and rehabilitation. Mainly, CFC could support advancing the understanding of the neurophysiology of cognition and motor control, serve as a biomarker for disease symptoms, and leverage the optimization of therapeutic interventions, e.g., closed-loop brain stimulation. Despite the evident advantages of CFC as an investigative and translational tool in neuroscience, further methodological improvements are required to facilitate practical and correct use in cyborg and bionic systems in the field.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.