Literature DB >> 25456981

Methods for specific electrode resistance measurement during transcranial direct current stimulation.

Niranjan Khadka1, Asif Rahman2, Chris Sarantos2, Dennis Q Truong2, Marom Bikson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of electrode resistance during tDCS is considered important for tolerability and safety. Conventional resistance measurement methods do not isolate individual electrode resistance and for HD-tDCS devices, cross talk across electrodes makes concurrent resistance monitoring unreliable.
OBJECTIVE: We propose a novel method to monitor individual electrode resistance during tDCS, using a super-position of direct current with a test-signal (low intensity and low frequency sinusoids with electrode-specific frequencies) and a sentinel electrode (not used for DC).
METHODS: We developed and solved lumped-parameter models of tDCS electrodes with or without a sentinel electrode to validate this methodology. Assumptions were tested and parameterized in participants using forearm stimulation combining tDCS (2 mA) and test-signals (38 and 76 μA pk-pk at 1 Hz, 10 Hz, & 100 Hz) and an in vitro test (creating electrode failure modes). DC and AC component voltages across the electrodes were compared and participants were asked to rate subjective pain.
RESULTS: A sentinel electrode is required to isolate electrode resistance in a two-electrode tDCS system. Cross talk aggravated with electrode proximity and resistance mismatch in multi-electrode resistance tracking could be corrected using proposed approaches. Average voltage and pain scores were not significantly different across test current intensities and frequencies.
CONCLUSION: Using our developed method, a test signal can predict DC electrode resistance. Since unique test frequencies can be used at each tDCS electrode, specific electrode resistance can be resolved for any number of stimulating channels - a process made still more robust by the use of a sentinel electrode. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brain stimulation; Electrode impedance; Electrode resistance; Neuromodulation; Tissue resistance; tDCS

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25456981      PMCID: PMC4277725          DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.004

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


  22 in total

1.  Comparatively weak after-effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) on cortical excitability in humans.

Authors:  Andrea Antal; Klára Boros; Csaba Poreisz; Leila Chaieb; Daniella Terney; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2007-12-03       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Electrodermal activity by DC potential and AC conductance measured simultaneously at the same skin site.

Authors:  Sverre Grimnes; Azar Jabbari; Ørjan G Martinsen; Christian Tronstad
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.365

Review 3.  Electrical stimulation of excitable tissue: design of efficacious and safe protocols.

Authors:  Daniel R Merrill; Marom Bikson; John G R Jefferys
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Cathodal tDCS over the left prefrontal cortex diminishes choice-induced preference change.

Authors:  Flavia Mengarelli; Silvia Spoglianti; Alessio Avenanti; Giuseppe di Pellegrino
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2013-11-24       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Methods for extra-low voltage transcranial direct current stimulation: current and time dependent impedance decreases.

Authors:  Christoph Hahn; Justin Rice; Shiraz Macuff; Preet Minhas; Asif Rahman; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-09-30       Impact factor: 3.708

6.  Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS.

Authors:  Preet Minhas; Varun Bansal; Jinal Patel; Johnson S Ho; Julian Diaz; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  The effects of electrode impedance on data quality and statistical significance in ERP recordings.

Authors:  Emily S Kappenman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 4.016

8.  Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality.

Authors:  T C Ferree; P Luu; G S Russell; D M Tucker
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  When size matters: large electrodes induce greater stimulation-related cutaneous discomfort than smaller electrodes at equivalent current density.

Authors:  Zsolt Turi; Géza Gergely Ambrus; Kerrie-Anne Ho; Titas Sengupta; Walter Paulus; Andrea Antal
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 8.955

10.  Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients.

Authors:  Csaba Poreisz; Klára Boros; Andrea Antal; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Brain Res Bull       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 4.077

View more
  2 in total

1.  Adaptive current tDCS up to 4 mA.

Authors:  Niranjan Khadka; Helen Borges; Bhaskar Paneri; Trynia Kaufman; Electra Nassis; Adantchede L Zannou; Yungjae Shin; Hyeongseob Choi; Seonghoon Kim; Kiwon Lee; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Minimal Heating at the Skin Surface During Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.

Authors:  Niranjan Khadka; Adantchede L Zannou; Fatima Zunara; Dennis Q Truong; Jacek Dmochowski; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-01-22
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.