Cargando…

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

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The magnitude, distribution, and characteristics of the electric field induced in the brain by application of transcranial electric stimulation depend on the electrode configuration used and the specific parameters of stimulation. An approach to calculate the generated electric field...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Molero-Chamizo, Andrés, Nitsche, Michael A., Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina, Salas Sánchez, Ángeles, Martín Riquel, Raquel, Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás, Alameda Bailén, José Ramón, García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos, Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8698402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943145
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology10121230
_version_ 1784620271235235840
author Molero-Chamizo, Andrés
Nitsche, Michael A.
Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina
Salas Sánchez, Ángeles
Martín Riquel, Raquel
Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás
Alameda Bailén, José Ramón
García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos
Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy
author_facet Molero-Chamizo, Andrés
Nitsche, Michael A.
Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina
Salas Sánchez, Ángeles
Martín Riquel, Raquel
Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás
Alameda Bailén, José Ramón
García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos
Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy
author_sort Molero-Chamizo, Andrés
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: The magnitude, distribution, and characteristics of the electric field induced in the brain by application of transcranial electric stimulation depend on the electrode configuration used and the specific parameters of stimulation. An approach to calculate the generated electric field is the computational finite element method. This method enables simulation of the current spread and electric field strength according to the electrode configuration and stimulation parameters used. However, current approaches have several limitations, which constrain the application of tDCS in empirical research and clinical practice. In this study, we provide examples of standard model-based electric field simulations corresponding to motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation using twenty typical electrode configurations. Two different current flow-modeling tools were used to compare the results and determine possible differences between both procedures regarding the specificity, as well as the reliability of the estimates. The results were rather consistent between both simulations. Some modest differences of the simulated distribution and intensity of the electric fields between the results of the respective modeling approaches were identified, which might have functional significance and reveal the need to empirically validate these models. The non-availability of quantitative data about the precise electric field distribution beyond the cortical target is a common limitation of both methods, which limits the determination of the spatial specificity of the intervention. These findings help to define future directions of research that allow to exploit the full potential of standard simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation. 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8698402
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86984022021-12-24 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 Molero-Chamizo, Andrés Nitsche, Michael A. Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina Salas Sánchez, Ángeles Martín Riquel, Raquel Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás Alameda Bailén, José Ramón García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy Biology (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: The magnitude, distribution, and characteristics of the electric field induced in the brain by application of transcranial electric stimulation depend on the electrode configuration used and the specific parameters of stimulation. An approach to calculate the generated electric field is the computational finite element method. This method enables simulation of the current spread and electric field strength according to the electrode configuration and stimulation parameters used. However, current approaches have several limitations, which constrain the application of tDCS in empirical research and clinical practice. In this study, we provide examples of standard model-based electric field simulations corresponding to motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation using twenty typical electrode configurations. Two different current flow-modeling tools were used to compare the results and determine possible differences between both procedures regarding the specificity, as well as the reliability of the estimates. The results were rather consistent between both simulations. Some modest differences of the simulated distribution and intensity of the electric fields between the results of the respective modeling approaches were identified, which might have functional significance and reveal the need to empirically validate these models. The non-availability of quantitative data about the precise electric field distribution beyond the cortical target is a common limitation of both methods, which limits the determination of the spatial specificity of the intervention. These findings help to define future directions of research that allow to exploit the full potential of standard simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation. 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. MDPI 2021-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8698402/ /pubmed/34943145 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology10121230 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Molero-Chamizo, Andrés
Nitsche, Michael A.
Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina
Salas Sánchez, Ángeles
Martín Riquel, Raquel
Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás
Alameda Bailén, José Ramón
García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos
Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe Nathzidy
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8698402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943145
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology10121230
work_keys_str_mv AT molerochamizoandres standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT nitschemichaela standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT gutierrezleridacarolina standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT salassanchezangeles standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT martinriquelraquel standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT andujarbarrosorafaeltomas standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT alamedabailenjoseramon standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT garciapalomequejesuscarlos standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches
AT riveraurbinaguadalupenathzidy standardnonpersonalizedelectricfieldmodelingoftwentytypicaltdcselectrodeconfigurationsviathecomputationalfiniteelementmethodcontributionsandlimitationsoftwodifferentapproaches