Literature DB >> 21659696

Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target.

Jacek P Dmochowski1, Abhishek Datta, Marom Bikson, Yuzhuo Su, Lucas C Parra.   

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides a non-invasive tool to elicit neuromodulation by delivering current through electrodes placed on the scalp. The present clinical paradigm uses two relatively large electrodes to inject current through the head resulting in electric fields that are broadly distributed over large regions of the brain. In this paper, we present a method that uses multiple small electrodes (i.e. 1.2 cm diameter) and systematically optimize the applied currents to achieve effective and targeted stimulation while ensuring safety of stimulation. We found a fundamental trade-off between achievable intensity (at the target) and focality, and algorithms to optimize both measures are presented. When compared with large pad-electrodes (approximated here by a set of small electrodes covering 25 cm(2)), the proposed approach achieves electric fields which exhibit simultaneously greater focality (80% improvement) and higher target intensity (98% improvement) at cortical targets using the same total current applied. These improvements illustrate the previously unrecognized and non-trivial dependence of the optimal electrode configuration on the desired electric field orientation and the maximum total current (due to safety). Similarly, by exploiting idiosyncratic details of brain anatomy, the optimization approach significantly improves upon prior un-optimized approaches using small electrodes. The analysis also reveals the optimal use of conventional bipolar montages: maximally intense tangential fields are attained with the two electrodes placed at a considerable distance from the target along the direction of the desired field; when radial fields are desired, the maximum-intensity configuration consists of an electrode placed directly over the target with a distant return electrode. To summarize, if a target location and stimulation orientation can be defined by the clinician, then the proposed technique is superior in terms of both focality and intensity as compared to previous solutions and is thus expected to translate into improved patient safety and increased clinical efficacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21659696     DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neural Eng        ISSN: 1741-2552            Impact factor:   5.379


  152 in total

1.  Impact of uncertain head tissue conductivity in the optimization of transcranial direct current stimulation for an auditory target.

Authors:  Christian Schmidt; Sven Wagner; Martin Burger; Ursula van Rienen; Carsten H Wolters
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 2.  Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.

Authors:  A Antal; I Alekseichuk; M Bikson; J Brockmöller; A R Brunoni; R Chen; L G Cohen; G Dowthwaite; J Ellrich; A Flöel; F Fregni; M S George; R Hamilton; J Haueisen; C S Herrmann; F C Hummel; J P Lefaucheur; D Liebetanz; C K Loo; C D McCaig; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; V Moliadze; M A Nitsche; R Nowak; F Padberg; A Pascual-Leone; W Poppendieck; A Priori; S Rossi; P M Rossini; J Rothwell; M A Rueger; G Ruffini; K Schellhorn; H R Siebner; Y Ugawa; A Wexler; U Ziemann; M Hallett; W Paulus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  The effect of tissue anisotropy on the radial and tangential components of the electric field in transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Mohamed K Metwally; Seung Moo Han; Tae-Seong Kim
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 4.  Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 8.955

5.  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

Review 6.  Neuromodulation for brain disorders: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Matthew D Johnson; Hubert H Lim; Theoden I Netoff; Allison T Connolly; Nessa Johnson; Abhrajeet Roy; Abbey Holt; Kelvin O Lim; James R Carey; Jerrold L Vitek; Bin He
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 4.538

7.  Clinician accessible tools for GUI computational models of transcranial electrical stimulation: BONSAI and SPHERES.

Authors:  Dennis Q Truong; Mathias Hüber; Xihe Xie; Abhishek Datta; Asif Rahman; Lucas C Parra; Jacek P Dmochowski; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-03-30       Impact factor: 8.955

8.  Imaging artifacts induced by electrical stimulation during conventional fMRI of the brain.

Authors:  Andrea Antal; Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta; Belen Lafon; Peter Dechent; Lucas C Parra; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Automated MRI segmentation for individualized modeling of current flow in the human head.

Authors:  Yu Huang; Jacek P Dmochowski; Yuzhuo Su; Abhishek Datta; Christopher Rorden; Lucas C Parra
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 5.379

10.  Sensorimotor Rhythm BCI with Simultaneous High Definition-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Alters Task Performance.

Authors:  Bryan S Baxter; Bradley J Edelman; Nicholas Nesbitt; Bin He
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 8.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.