» Articles » PMID: 34943145

Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical TDCS Electrode Configurations Via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation procedure to modulate cortical excitability and related brain functions. tDCS can effectively alter multiple brain functions in healthy humans and is suggested as a therapeutic tool in several neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, variability of results is an important limitation of this method. This variability may be due to multiple factors, including age, head and brain anatomy (including skull, skin, CSF and meninges), cognitive reserve and baseline performance level, specific task demands, as well as comorbidities in clinical settings. Different electrode montages are a further source of variability between tDCS studies. A procedure to estimate the electric field generated by specific tDCS electrode configurations, which can be helpful to adapt stimulation protocols, is the computational finite element method. This approach is useful to provide a priori modeling of the current spread and electric field intensity that will be generated according to the implemented electrode montage. Here, we present standard, non-personalized model-based electric field simulations for motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation according to twenty typical tDCS electrode configurations using two different current flow modeling software packages. The resulting simulated maximum intensity of the electric field, focality, and current spread were similar, but not identical, between models. The advantages and limitations of both mathematical simulations of the electric field are presented and discussed systematically, including aspects that, at present, prevent more widespread application of respective simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation.

Citing Articles

A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Schwertfeger J, Beyer C, Hung P, Ung N, Madigan C, Cortes A Front Neuroergon. 2024; 4:1170473.

PMID: 38234478 PMC: 10790940. DOI: 10.3389/fnrgo.2023.1170473.


Optimized APPS-tDCS electrode position, size, and distance doubles the on-target stimulation magnitude in 3000 electric field models.

Caulfield K, George M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):20116.

PMID: 36418438 PMC: 9684449. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24618-3.

References
1.
Parkin B, Bhandari M, Glen J, Walsh V . The physiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation do not apply to parameters commonly used in studies of cognitive neuromodulation. Neuropsychologia. 2018; 128:332-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.030. View

2.
Caulfield K, Indahlastari A, Nissim N, Lopez J, Fleischmann H, Woods A . Electric Field Strength From Prefrontal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Determines Degree of Working Memory Response: A Potential Application of Reverse-Calculation Modeling?. Neuromodulation. 2022; 25(4):578-587. DOI: 10.1111/ner.13342. View

3.
Berryhill M, Martin D . Cognitive Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Healthy and Clinical Populations: An Overview. J ECT. 2018; 34(3):e25-e35. DOI: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000534. View

4.
Chhatbar P, Kautz S, Takacs I, Rowland N, Revuelta G, George M . Evidence of transcranial direct current stimulation-generated electric fields at subthalamic level in human brain in vivo. Brain Stimul. 2018; 11(4):727-733. PMC: 6019625. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.03.006. View

5.
Rawji V, Ciocca M, Zacharia A, Soares D, Truong D, Bikson M . tDCS changes in motor excitability are specific to orientation of current flow. Brain Stimul. 2017; 11(2):289-298. PMC: 5805821. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.001. View