OBJECTIVES: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that delivers low-intensity currents facilitating or inhibiting spontaneous neuronal activity. tDCS is attractive since dose is readily adjustable by simply changing electrode number, position, size, shape, and current. In the recent past, computational models have been developed with increased precision with the goal to help customize tDCS dose. The aim of this review is to discuss the incorporation of high-resolution patient-specific computer modeling to guide and optimize tDCS. METHODS: In this review, we discuss the following topics: 1) The clinical motivation and rationale for models of transcranial stimulation is considered pivotal in order to leverage the flexibility of neuromodulation; 2) the protocols and the workflow for developing high-resolution models; 3) the technical challenges and limitations of interpreting modeling predictions; and 4) real cases merging modeling and clinical data illustrating the impact of computational models on the rational design of rehabilitative electrotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Though modeling for noninvasive brain stimulation is still in its development phase, it is predicted that with increased validation, dissemination, simplification, and democratization of modeling tools, computational forward models of neuromodulation will become useful tools to guide the optimization of clinical electrotherapy.
OBJECTIVES: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulatory technique that delivers low-intensity currents facilitating or inhibiting spontaneous neuronal activity. tDCS is attractive since dose is readily adjustable by simply changing electrode number, position, size, shape, and current. In the recent past, computational models have been developed with increased precision with the goal to help customize tDCS dose. The aim of this review is to discuss the incorporation of high-resolution patient-specific computer modeling to guide and optimize tDCS. METHODS: In this review, we discuss the following topics: 1) The clinical motivation and rationale for models of transcranial stimulation is considered pivotal in order to leverage the flexibility of neuromodulation; 2) the protocols and the workflow for developing high-resolution models; 3) the technical challenges and limitations of interpreting modeling predictions; and 4) real cases merging modeling and clinical data illustrating the impact of computational models on the rational design of rehabilitative electrotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Though modeling for noninvasive brain stimulation is still in its development phase, it is predicted that with increased validation, dissemination, simplification, and democratization of modeling tools, computational forward models of neuromodulation will become useful tools to guide the optimization of clinical electrotherapy.
Authors: Marta Parazzini; Serena Fiocchi; Elena Rossi; Alessia Paglialonga; Paolo Ravazzani Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Edina T Varga; Daniella Terney; Mary D Atkins; Marina Nikanorova; Ditte S Jeppesen; Peter Uldall; Helle Hjalgrim; Sándor Beniczky Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Andre Russowsky Brunoni; Michael A Nitsche; Nadia Bolognini; Marom Bikson; Tim Wagner; Lotfi Merabet; Dylan J Edwards; Antoni Valero-Cabre; Alexander Rotenberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Roberta Ferrucci; Alberto Priori; Paulo Sergio Boggio; Felipe Fregni Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Anand Mattai; Rachel Miller; Brian Weisinger; Deanna Greenstein; Jennifer Bakalar; Julia Tossell; Christopher David; Eric M Wassermann; Judith Rapoport; Nitin Gogtay Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Felipe Fregni; Sigride Thome-Souza; Michael A Nitsche; Steven D Freedman; Kette D Valente; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Paola Marangolo; Benjamin M Hampstead; Sven Bestmann; Elisabeth Galletta; Helena Knotkova; Marom Bikson Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 8.955
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
Authors: Dennis Q Truong; Greta Magerowski; George L Blackburn; Marom Bikson; Miguel Alonso-Alonso Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 4.881