Literature DB >> 16644273

Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation.

R N Holdefer1, R Sadleir, M J Russell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought an electrical modeling approach to evaluate the potential application of finite element method (FEM) modeling to predict current pathways and intensities in the brain after transcranial electrical stimulation.
METHODS: A single coronal MRI section through the head, including motor cortex, was modeled using FEM. White matter compartments with both anatomically realistic anisotropies in resistivity and with a homogeneous resistivity were modeled. Current densities in the brain were predicted for electrode sites on the scalp and after theoretical application of a conductive head restraint device.
RESULTS: Localized current densities were predicted for the model with white matter anisotropies. Differences in predicted peak current densities were related to location of stimulation sites relative to deep sulci in the brain and scalp shunting that was predicted to increase with inter-electrode proximity. A conductive head restraint device was predicted to shunt current away from the brain when a constant current source was used.
CONCLUSIONS: The complex geometry of different tissue compartments in the head and their contrasting resistivities may jointly determine the strength and location of current densities in the brain after transcranial stimulation. This might be predictable with FEM incorporating white matter anisotropies. Conductive head restraint devices during surgery may be contraindicated with constant current stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Individually optimized tcMEP monitoring and localized transcranial activation in the brain might be possible through FEM modeling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16644273      PMCID: PMC2426751          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.02.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  34 in total

1.  Influence of tissue resistivities on neuromagnetic fields and electric potentials studied with a finite element model of the head.

Authors:  J Haueisen; C Ramon; M Eiselt; H Brauer; H Nowak
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Patterns of facilitation and suppression of antagonist forelimb muscles from motor cortex sites in the awake monkey.

Authors:  P D Cheney; E E Fetz; S S Palmer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Isoflurane plus nitrous oxide versus propofol for recording of motor evoked potentials after high frequency repetitive electrical stimulation.

Authors:  U Pechstein; J Nadstawek; J Zentner; J Schramm
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-03

4.  "Threshold-level" multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: description of method and comparison to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring.

Authors:  B Calancie; W Harris; J G Broton; N Alexeeva; B A Green
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Noninvasive motor evoked potential monitoring during neurosurgical operations on the spinal cord.

Authors:  J Zentner
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Effect of inhomogeneities on surface signals coming from a cerebral current-dipole source.

Authors:  M Schneider
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 4.538

7.  Fontanels: range of normal size.

Authors:  G A Popich; D W Smith
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1972-05       Impact factor: 4.406

8.  Current distribution in the brain from surface electrodes.

Authors:  S Rush; D A Driscoll
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1968 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull.

Authors:  S K Law
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  Location of sources of evoked scalp potentials: corrections for skull and scalp thicknesses.

Authors:  J P Ary; S A Klein; D H Fender
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 4.538

View more
  42 in total

1.  Effect of tDCS with an extracephalic reference electrode on cardio-respiratory and autonomic functions.

Authors:  Yves Vandermeeren; Jacques Jamart; Michel Ossemann
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.288

Review 2.  Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Timothy A Wagner; Pedro C Miranda; Michael A Nitsche; Walter Paulus; Sarah H Lisanby; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad.

Authors:  Abhishek Datta; Varun Bansal; Julian Diaz; Jinal Patel; Davide Reato; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 4.  Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update.

Authors:  David B Macdonald
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2006-07-11       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Modeling skull electrical properties.

Authors:  R J Sadleir; A Argibay
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-07-14       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Evidence for metaplasticity in the human visual cortex.

Authors:  Tommaso Bocci; Matteo Caleo; Silvia Tognazzi; Nikita Francini; Lucia Briscese; Lamberto Maffei; Simone Rossi; Alberto Priori; Ferdinando Sartucci
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 3.575

7.  Detecting large-scale networks in the human brain using high-density electroencephalography.

Authors:  Quanying Liu; Seyedehrezvan Farahibozorg; Camillo Porcaro; Nicole Wenderoth; Dante Mantini
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: a comparison study.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Munish Chauhan; Rosalind J Sadleir
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.379

9.  Electric Field Model of Transcranial Electric Stimulation in Nonhuman Primates: Correspondence to Individual Motor Threshold.

Authors:  Won Hee Lee; Sarah H Lisanby; Andrew F Laine; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 4.538

10.  Brain switches utilitarian behavior: does gender make the difference?

Authors:  Manuela Fumagalli; Maurizio Vergari; Patrizio Pasqualetti; Sara Marceglia; Francesca Mameli; Roberta Ferrucci; Simona Mrakic-Sposta; Stefano Zago; Giuseppe Sartori; Gabriella Pravettoni; Sergio Barbieri; Stefano Cappa; Alberto Priori
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.