J J Pérez1, E Guijarro, J A Barcia. 1. Laboratorio Integrado de Bioingeniería, Departamento de Ingeniería Electrónica, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Cno. de Vera S/N, 46022, Valencia, Spain. jjperez@eln.upv.es
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Partial contributions of intracranial and extracranial circulation to rheoencephalography (REG) remain uncertain. The main goal of this work is to determine theoretically the capability of REG techniques to reflect intracranial blood flow. METHODS: Head and current injection electrodes were computationally modeled to assess REG sensitivity to brain and scalp conductivity changes. Data obtained were related to tissue perfusions to calculate the partial contribution of cerebral blood perfusion to REG I, REG II and monopolar REG and to assess their amplitudes. RESULTS: When REG I and monopolar REG were used, the theoretical maximum of intracranial contribution was reached with large current injection electrodes, being 8% for REG I and 12% for monopolar REG. However, some specific REG II electrode arrangements showed a nil contribution of the extracranial circulation and a minimum influence of the electrode size. CONCLUSIONS: These results may explain the disagreement on REG origin and suggest a theoretically optimum electrode arrangement.
OBJECTIVES: Partial contributions of intracranial and extracranial circulation to rheoencephalography (REG) remain uncertain. The main goal of this work is to determine theoretically the capability of REG techniques to reflect intracranial blood flow. METHODS: Head and current injection electrodes were computationally modeled to assess REG sensitivity to brain and scalp conductivity changes. Data obtained were related to tissue perfusions to calculate the partial contribution of cerebral blood perfusion to REG I, REG II and monopolar REG and to assess their amplitudes. RESULTS: When REG I and monopolar REG were used, the theoretical maximum of intracranial contribution was reached with large current injection electrodes, being 8% for REG I and 12% for monopolar REG. However, some specific REG II electrode arrangements showed a nil contribution of the extracranial circulation and a minimum influence of the electrode size. CONCLUSIONS: These results may explain the disagreement on REG origin and suggest a theoretically optimum electrode arrangement.