Literature DB >> 23644000

Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex.

Alexander Opitz1, Wynn Legon2, Abby Rowlands2, Warren K Bickel3, Walter Paulus4, William J Tyler5.   

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates subject-specific gyral folding patterns and white matter anisotropy uniquely shape electric fields generated by TMS. Current methods for predicting the brain regions influenced by TMS involve projecting the TMS coil position or center of gravity onto realistic head models derived from structural and functional imaging data. Similarly, spherical models have been used to estimate electric field distributions generated by TMS pulses delivered from a particular coil location and position. In the present paper we inspect differences between electric field computations estimated using the finite element method (FEM) and projection-based approaches described above. We then more specifically examined an approach for estimating cortical excitation volumes based on individualistic FEM simulations of electric fields. We evaluated this approach by performing neurophysiological recordings during MR-navigated motormapping experiments. We recorded motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in response to single pulse TMS using two different coil orientations (45° and 90° to midline) at 25 different locations (5×5 grid, 1cm spacing) centered on the hotspot of the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle in left motor cortex. We observed that motor excitability maps varied within and between subjects as a function of TMS coil position and orientation. For each coil position and orientation tested, simulations of the TMS-induced electric field were computed using individualistic FEM models and compared to MEP amplitudes obtained during our motormapping experiments. We found FEM simulations of electric field strength, which take into account subject-specific gyral geometry and tissue conductivity anisotropy, significantly correlated with physiologically observed MEP amplitudes (rmax=0.91, p=1.8×10(-5) rmean=0.81, p=0.01). These observations validate the implementation of individualistic FEM models to account for variations in gyral folding patterns and tissue conductivity anisotropy, which should help improve the targeting accuracy of TMS in the mapping or modulation of human brain circuits.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electric field; Finite element model; Motor cortex; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23644000     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  45 in total

1.  Simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation in head model with morphologically-realistic cortical neurons.

Authors:  Aman S Aberra; Boshuo Wang; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Comparative modeling of transcranial magnetic and electric stimulation in mouse, monkey, and human.

Authors:  Ivan Alekseichuk; Kathleen Mantell; Sina Shirinpour; Alexander Opitz
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 3.  The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Zhi-De Deng
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-26

4.  The effect of local anatomy on the electric field induced by TMS: evaluation at 14 different target sites.

Authors:  Arno M Janssen; Thom F Oostendorp; Dick F Stegeman
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates the activity of primary somatosensory cortex in humans.

Authors:  Wynn Legon; Tomokazu F Sato; Alexander Opitz; Jerel Mueller; Aaron Barbour; Amanda Williams; William J Tyler
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-12       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 6.  Rehabilitating the addicted brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Marco Diana; Tommi Raij; Miriam Melis; Aapo Nummenmaa; Lorenzo Leggio; Antonello Bonci
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 34.870

7.  Development, validation, and pilot MRI safety study of a high-resolution, open source, whole body pediatric numerical simulation model.

Authors:  Hongbae Jeong; Georgios Ntolkeras; Michel Alhilani; Seyed Reza Atefi; Lilla Zöllei; Kyoko Fujimoto; Ali Pourvaziri; Michael H Lev; P Ellen Grant; Giorgio Bonmassar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Preliminary Upper Estimate of Peak Currents in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Distant Locations From a TMS Coil.

Authors:  Sergey N Makarov; Janakinadh Yanamadala; Matthew W Piazza; Alex M Helderman; Niang S Thang; Edward H Burnham; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.538

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.  Efficacy of Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation is Related to Sensitivity to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Ludovica Labruna; Asif Jamil; Shane Fresnoza; Giorgi Batsikadze; Min-Fang Kuo; Benjamin Vanderschelden; Richard B Ivry; Michael A Nitsche
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 8.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.