Cargando…

Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes

Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered acr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soleimani, Ghazaleh, Saviz, Mehrdad, Bikson, Marom, Towhidkhah, Farzad, Kuplicki, Rayus, Paulus, Martin P., Ekhtiari, Hamed
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7809198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33446802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80279-0
_version_ 1783637069259603968
author Soleimani, Ghazaleh
Saviz, Mehrdad
Bikson, Marom
Towhidkhah, Farzad
Kuplicki, Rayus
Paulus, Martin P.
Ekhtiari, Hamed
author_facet Soleimani, Ghazaleh
Saviz, Mehrdad
Bikson, Marom
Towhidkhah, Farzad
Kuplicki, Rayus
Paulus, Martin P.
Ekhtiari, Hamed
author_sort Soleimani, Ghazaleh
collection PubMed
description Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common “frontal” tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric “unilateral” (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric “bilateral” (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7809198
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78091982021-01-15 Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes Soleimani, Ghazaleh Saviz, Mehrdad Bikson, Marom Towhidkhah, Farzad Kuplicki, Rayus Paulus, Martin P. Ekhtiari, Hamed Sci Rep Article Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common “frontal” tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric “unilateral” (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric “bilateral” (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7809198/ /pubmed/33446802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80279-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Soleimani, Ghazaleh
Saviz, Mehrdad
Bikson, Marom
Towhidkhah, Farzad
Kuplicki, Rayus
Paulus, Martin P.
Ekhtiari, Hamed
Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title_full Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title_fullStr Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title_full_unstemmed Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title_short Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
title_sort group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric dlpfc montages for tdcs over large scale brain network nodes
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7809198/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33446802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80279-0
work_keys_str_mv AT soleimanighazaleh groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT savizmehrdad groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT biksonmarom groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT towhidkhahfarzad groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT kuplickirayus groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT paulusmartinp groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes
AT ekhtiarihamed groupandindividuallevelvariationsbetweensymmetricandasymmetricdlpfcmontagesfortdcsoverlargescalebrainnetworknodes