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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |