Literature DB >> 21777878

Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient.

Abhishek Datta1, Julie M Baker, Marom Bikson, Julius Fridriksson.   

Abstract

Although numerous published reports have demonstrated the beneficial effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) on task performance, fundamental questions remain regarding the optimal electrode configuration on the scalp. Moreover, it is expected that lesioned brain tissue will influence current flow and should therefore be considered (and perhaps leveraged) in the design of individualized tDCS therapies for stroke. The current report demonstrates how different electrode configurations influence the flow of electrical current through brain tissue in a patient who responded positively to a tDCS treatment targeting aphasia. The patient, a 60-year-old man, sustained a left hemisphere ischemic stroke (lesion size = 87.42 mL) 64 months before his participation. In this study, we present results from the first high-resolution (1 mm(3)) model of tDCS in a brain with considerable stroke-related damage; the model was individualized for the patient who received anodal tDCS to his left frontal cortex with the reference cathode electrode placed on his right shoulder. We modeled the resulting brain current flow and also considered three additional reference electrode positions: right mastoid, right orbitofrontal cortex, and a "mirror" configuration with the anode over the undamaged right cortex. Our results demonstrate the profound effect of lesioned tissue on resulting current flow and the ability to modulate current pattern through the brain, including perilesional regions, through electrode montage design. The complexity of brain current flow modulation by detailed normal and pathologic anatomy suggest: (1) That computational models are critical for the rational interpretation and design of individualized tDCS stroke-therapy; and (2) These models must accurately reproduce head anatomy as shown here.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21777878      PMCID: PMC3142347          DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  20 in total

1.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  M A Nitsche; W Paulus
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2000-09-15       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Effects of uniform extracellular DC electric fields on excitability in rat hippocampal slices in vitro.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Masashi Inoue; Hiroki Akiyama; Jackie K Deans; John E Fox; Hiroyoshi Miyakawa; John G R Jefferys
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2004-02-20       Impact factor: 5.182

3.  Patient-specific analysis of the volume of tissue activated during deep brain stimulation.

Authors:  Christopher R Butson; Scott E Cooper; Jaimie M Henderson; Cameron C McIntyre
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Pedro Cavaleiro Miranda; Mikhail Lomarev; Mark Hallett
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Influence of electric fields on the excitability of granule cells in guinea-pig hippocampal slices.

Authors:  J G Jefferys
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke.

Authors:  Friedhelm Hummel; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.919

7.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study.

Authors:  Tim Wagner; Felipe Fregni; Shirley Fecteau; Alan Grodzinsky; Markus Zahn; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-02-04       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  A model for multiparametric mri tissue characterization in experimental cerebral ischemia with histological validation in rat: part 1.

Authors:  M A Jacobs; Z G Zhang; R A Knight; H Soltanian-Zadeh; A V Goussev; D J Peck; M Chopp
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Safety and cognitive effect of frontal DC brain polarization in healthy individuals.

Authors:  M B Iyer; U Mattu; J Grafman; M Lomarev; S Sato; E M Wassermann
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 10.  Fast robust automated brain extraction.

Authors:  Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.038

View more
  109 in total

Review 1.  Brain Stimulation and the Role of the Right Hemisphere in Aphasia Recovery.

Authors:  Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.081

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.  Treatment of Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Authors:  Donna C Tippett; Argye E Hillis; Kyrana Tsapkini
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.598

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Noninvasive brain stimulation to lateral prefrontal cortex alters the novelty of creative idea generation.

Authors:  Yoed N Kenett; David S Rosen; Emilio R Tamez; Sharon L Thompson-Schill
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 7.  Animal models of transcranial direct current stimulation: Methods and mechanisms.

Authors:  Mark P Jackson; Asif Rahman; Belen Lafon; Gregory Kronberg; Doris Ling; Lucas C Parra; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  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

9.  High frequency stimulation extends the refractory period and generates axonal block in the rat hippocampus.

Authors:  Zhouyan Feng; Ying Yu; Zheshan Guo; Jiayue Cao; Dominique M Durand
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 8.955

10.  White matter hyperintensities affect transcranial electrical stimulation in the aging brain.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Alejandro Albizu; Emanuel M Boutzoukas; Andrew O'Shea; Adam J Woods
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 8.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.