Cargando…

Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study

INTRODUCTION: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki, Takahashi, Shun, Karali, Temmuz, Mezger, Eva, Bulubas, Lucia, Papazova, Irina, Dechantsreiter, Esther, Stoecklein, Sophia, Papazov, Boris, Thielscher, Axel, Padberg, Frank, Keeser, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9125784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35487132
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103011
_version_ 1784712006467584000
author Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki
Takahashi, Shun
Karali, Temmuz
Mezger, Eva
Bulubas, Lucia
Papazova, Irina
Dechantsreiter, Esther
Stoecklein, Sophia
Papazov, Boris
Thielscher, Axel
Padberg, Frank
Keeser, Daniel
author_facet Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki
Takahashi, Shun
Karali, Temmuz
Mezger, Eva
Bulubas, Lucia
Papazova, Irina
Dechantsreiter, Esther
Stoecklein, Sophia
Papazov, Boris
Thielscher, Axel
Padberg, Frank
Keeser, Daniel
author_sort Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (SCZ). However, the effects of tDCS vary inter-individually, and dose–response relationships have not been established. Stimulation parameters are often tested in healthy subjects and transferred to clinical populations. The current study investigates the variability of individual MRI-based electric fields (e-fields) of standard bifrontal tDCS across individual subjects and diagnoses. METHOD: The study included 74 subjects, i.e. 25 patients with MDD, 24 patients with SCZ, and 25 healthy controls (HC). Individual e-fields of a common tDCS protocol (i.e. 2 mA stimulation intensity, bifrontal anode-F3/cathode-F4 montage) were modeled by two investigators using SimNIBS (2.0.1) based on structural MRI scans. RESULT: On a whole-brain level, the average e-field strength was significantly reduced in MDD and SCZ compared to HC, but MDD and SCZ did not differ significantly. Regions of interest (ROI) analysis for PFC subregions showed reduced e-fields in Sallet areas 8B and 9 for MDD and SCZ compared to HC, whereas there was again no difference between MDD and SCZ. Within groups, we generally observed high inter-individual variability of e-field intensities at a higher percentile of voxels. CONCLUSION: MRI-based e-field modeling revealed significant differences in e-field strengths between clinical and non-clinical populations in addition to a general inter-individual variability. These findings support the notion that dose–response relationships for tDCS cannot be simply transferred from healthy to clinical cohorts and need to be individually established for clinical groups. In this respect, MRI-based e-field modeling may serve as a proxy for individualized dosing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9125784
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91257842022-05-24 Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki Takahashi, Shun Karali, Temmuz Mezger, Eva Bulubas, Lucia Papazova, Irina Dechantsreiter, Esther Stoecklein, Sophia Papazov, Boris Thielscher, Axel Padberg, Frank Keeser, Daniel Neuroimage Clin Regular Article INTRODUCTION: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (SCZ). However, the effects of tDCS vary inter-individually, and dose–response relationships have not been established. Stimulation parameters are often tested in healthy subjects and transferred to clinical populations. The current study investigates the variability of individual MRI-based electric fields (e-fields) of standard bifrontal tDCS across individual subjects and diagnoses. METHOD: The study included 74 subjects, i.e. 25 patients with MDD, 24 patients with SCZ, and 25 healthy controls (HC). Individual e-fields of a common tDCS protocol (i.e. 2 mA stimulation intensity, bifrontal anode-F3/cathode-F4 montage) were modeled by two investigators using SimNIBS (2.0.1) based on structural MRI scans. RESULT: On a whole-brain level, the average e-field strength was significantly reduced in MDD and SCZ compared to HC, but MDD and SCZ did not differ significantly. Regions of interest (ROI) analysis for PFC subregions showed reduced e-fields in Sallet areas 8B and 9 for MDD and SCZ compared to HC, whereas there was again no difference between MDD and SCZ. Within groups, we generally observed high inter-individual variability of e-field intensities at a higher percentile of voxels. CONCLUSION: MRI-based e-field modeling revealed significant differences in e-field strengths between clinical and non-clinical populations in addition to a general inter-individual variability. These findings support the notion that dose–response relationships for tDCS cannot be simply transferred from healthy to clinical cohorts and need to be individually established for clinical groups. In this respect, MRI-based e-field modeling may serve as a proxy for individualized dosing. Elsevier 2022-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9125784/ /pubmed/35487132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103011 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Article
Mizutani-Tiebel, Yuki
Takahashi, Shun
Karali, Temmuz
Mezger, Eva
Bulubas, Lucia
Papazova, Irina
Dechantsreiter, Esther
Stoecklein, Sophia
Papazov, Boris
Thielscher, Axel
Padberg, Frank
Keeser, Daniel
Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title_full Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title_fullStr Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title_full_unstemmed Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title_short Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
title_sort differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tdcs: a cross-diagnostic, individual mri-based modeling study
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9125784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35487132
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103011
work_keys_str_mv AT mizutanitiebelyuki differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT takahashishun differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT karalitemmuz differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT mezgereva differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT bulubaslucia differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT papazovairina differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT dechantsreiteresther differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT stoeckleinsophia differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT papazovboris differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT thielscheraxel differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT padbergfrank differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy
AT keeserdaniel differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy