On the Importance of Precise Electrode Placement for Targeted Transcranial Electric Stimulation

Overview

Journal Neuroimage

Specialty Radiology

Date 2018 Jul 17

PMID 30010008

Citations 53

Authors

Alexander Opitz

Erin Yeagle

Axel Thielscher

Charles Schroeder

Ashesh D Mehta

Michael P Milham

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Transcranial electric stimulation (TES) is an increasingly popular method for non-invasive modulation of brain activity and a potential treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders. However, there are concerns about the reliability of its application because of variability in TES-induced intracranial electric fields across individuals. While realistic computational models offer can help to alleviate these concerns, their direct empirical validation is sparse, and their practical implications are not always clear. In this study, we combine direct intracranial measurements of electric fields generated by TES in surgical epilepsy patients with computational modeling. First, we directly validate the computational models and identify key parameters needed for accurate model predictions. Second, we derive practical guidelines for a reliable application of TES in terms of the precision of electrode placement needed to achieve a desired electric field distribution. Based on our results, we recommend electrode placement accuracy to be < 1 cm for a reliable application of TES across sessions.

Citing Articles

EFMouse: a Matlab toolbox to model stimulation-induced electric fields in the mouse brain.

Sanchez-Romero R, Akyuz S, Krekelberg B bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39091807 PMC: 11291114. DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.25.605227.

No Object-Location Memory Improvement through Focal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over the Right Temporoparietal Cortex.

Fromm A, Grittner U, Brodt S, Floel A, Antonenko D Life (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38792561 PMC: 11122124. DOI: 10.3390/life14050539.

Population-level insights into temporal interference for focused deep brain neuromodulation.

Yatsuda K, Yu W, Gomez-Tames J Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1308549.

PMID: 38708141 PMC: 11066208. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1308549.

Tumor-treating fields dosimetry in glioblastoma: Insights into treatment planning, optimization, and dose-response relationships.

Mikic N, Gentilal N, Cao F, Lok E, Wong E, Ballo M Neurooncol Adv. 2024; 6(1):vdae032.

PMID: 38560348 PMC: 10981464. DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdae032.

Transcranial direct current stimulation as treatment for major depression in a home treatment setting (HomeDC trial): study protocol and methodology of a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.

Kumpf U, Ezim H, Stadler M, Burkhardt G, Palm U, Dechantsreiter E Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023; 9(1):197.

PMID: 38102647 PMC: 10722795. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-023-01423-x.

References

Oh S, Lee B, Woo E, Lee S, Cho M, Kwon O . Conductivity and current density image reconstruction using harmonic Bz algorithm in magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2003; 48(19):3101-16. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/48/19/001. View

Polania R, Nitsche M, Ruff C . Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation. Nat Neurosci. 2018; 21(2):174-187. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-017-0054-4. View

Windhoff M, Opitz A, Thielscher A . Electric field calculations in brain stimulation based on finite elements: an optimized processing pipeline for the generation and usage of accurate individual head models. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011; 34(4):923-35. PMC: 6870291. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21479. View

Opitz A, Falchier A, Linn G, Milham M, Schroeder C . Limitations of ex vivo measurements for in vivo neuroscience. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(20):5243-5246. PMC: 5441777. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617024114. View

Lopez-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Rio-Rodriguez D, Fernandez-Del-Olmo M . Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul. 2014; 7(3):372-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.004. View

Opitz A, Falchier A, Yan C, Yeagle E, Linn G, Megevand P . Spatiotemporal structure of intracranial electric fields induced by transcranial electric stimulation in humans and nonhuman primates. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:31236. PMC: 4989141. DOI: 10.1038/srep31236. View

Diedenhofen B, Musch J . cocor: a comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0121945. PMC: 4383486. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121945. View

Van Essen D, Ugurbil K, Auerbach E, Barch D, Behrens T, Bucholz R . The Human Connectome Project: a data acquisition perspective. Neuroimage. 2012; 62(4):2222-31. PMC: 3606888. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.018. View

Huang Y, Liu A, Lafon B, Friedman D, Dayan M, Wang X . Measurements and models of electric fields in the human brain during transcranial electric stimulation. Elife. 2017; 6. PMC: 5370189. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.18834. View

10.

Kuo M, Paulus W, Nitsche M . Therapeutic effects of non-invasive brain stimulation with direct currents (tDCS) in neuropsychiatric diseases. Neuroimage. 2013; 85 Pt 3:948-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.117. View

11.

Saturnino G, Antunes A, Thielscher A . On the importance of electrode parameters for shaping electric field patterns generated by tDCS. Neuroimage. 2015; 120:25-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.067. View

12.

Laakso I, Tanaka S, Koyama S, De Santis V, Hirata A . Inter-subject Variability in Electric Fields of Motor Cortical tDCS. Brain Stimul. 2015; 8(5):906-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2015.05.002. View

13.

Opitz A, Paulus W, Will S, Antunes A, Thielscher A . Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroimage. 2015; 109:140-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.033. View

14.

Ridding M, Ziemann U . Determinants of the induction of cortical plasticity by non-invasive brain stimulation in healthy subjects. J Physiol. 2010; 588(Pt 13):2291-304. PMC: 2915507. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.190314. View

15.

Wiethoff S, Hamada M, Rothwell J . Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2014; 7(3):468-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.02.003. View

16.

Woods A, Antal A, Bikson M, Boggio P, Brunoni A, Celnik P . A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015; 127(2):1031-1048. PMC: 4747791. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012. View

17.

Aydin U, Vorwerk J, Kupper P, Heers M, Kugel H, Galka A . Combining EEG and MEG for the reconstruction of epileptic activity using a calibrated realistic volume conductor model. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e93154. PMC: 3966892. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093154. View

18.

Datta A, Bikson M, Fregni F . Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with skull defects and skull plates: high-resolution computational FEM study of factors altering cortical current flow. Neuroimage. 2010; 52(4):1268-78. PMC: 2910315. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.252. View

19.

Gabriel C, Gabriel S, Corthout E . The dielectric properties of biological tissues: I. Literature survey. Phys Med Biol. 1996; 41(11):2231-49. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/11/001. View

20.

Paulus W . Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES - tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011; 21(5):602-17. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2011.557292. View