Adam J Woods1, Vaughn Bryant2, Daniela Sacchetti3, Felix Gervits3, Roy Hamilton3. 1. Cognitive Aging and Memory Clinical Translational Research Program, Institute on Aging, Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, USA. Electronic address: ajwoods@ufl.edu. 2. Cognitive Aging and Memory Clinical Translational Research Program, Institute on Aging, Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, USA. 3. Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) methods involve application of weak electrical current through electrodes encased in saline-soaked sponges affixed to the head using elastic straps. In the absence of careful preparation, electrodes can drift from their original location over the course of a tDCS session. OBJECTIVE: The current paper investigates the influence of electrode drift on distribution of electric fields generated by conventional tDCS. METHODS: MRI-derived finite element models of electric fields produced by tDCS were used to investigate the influence of incremental drift in electrodes for two of the most common electrode montages used in the literature: M1/SO (motor to contralateral supraorbital) and F3/F4 (bilateral frontal). Based on these models, we extracted predicted current intensity from 20 representative structures in the brain. RESULTS: Results from separate RM-ANOVAs for M1/SO and F3/F4 montages demonstrated that 5% incremental drift in electrode position significantly changed the distribution of current delivered by tDCS to the human brain (F's > 8.6, P's < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that as little as 5% drift was able to produce significant differences in current intensity in structures distributed across the brain (P's < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Drift in electrode position during a session of tDCS produces significant alteration in the intensity of stimulation delivered to the brain. Elimination of this source of variability will facilitate replication and interpretation of tDCS findings. Furthermore, measurement and statistically accounting for drift may prove important for better characterizing the effects of tDCS on the human brain and behavior.
BACKGROUND: Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) methods involve application of weak electrical current through electrodes encased in saline-soaked sponges affixed to the head using elastic straps. In the absence of careful preparation, electrodes can drift from their original location over the course of a tDCS session. OBJECTIVE: The current paper investigates the influence of electrode drift on distribution of electric fields generated by conventional tDCS. METHODS: MRI-derived finite element models of electric fields produced by tDCS were used to investigate the influence of incremental drift in electrodes for two of the most common electrode montages used in the literature: M1/SO (motor to contralateral supraorbital) and F3/F4 (bilateral frontal). Based on these models, we extracted predicted current intensity from 20 representative structures in the brain. RESULTS: Results from separate RM-ANOVAs for M1/SO and F3/F4 montages demonstrated that 5% incremental drift in electrode position significantly changed the distribution of current delivered by tDCS to the human brain (F's > 8.6, P's < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that as little as 5% drift was able to produce significant differences in current intensity in structures distributed across the brain (P's < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Drift in electrode position during a session of tDCS produces significant alteration in the intensity of stimulation delivered to the brain. Elimination of this source of variability will facilitate replication and interpretation of tDCS findings. Furthermore, measurement and statistically accounting for drift may prove important for better characterizing the effects of tDCS on the human brain and behavior.
Authors: Andreas Rogalewski; Caterina Breitenstein; Michael A Nitsche; Walter Paulus; Stefan Knecht Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Peter E Turkeltaub; Jennifer Benson; Roy H Hamilton; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson; H Branch Coslett Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Adam J Woods; Ronald Cohen; Michael Marsiske; Gene E Alexander; Sara J Czaja; Samuel Wu Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 2.226
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
Authors: Tonya L Rich; Jeremiah S Menk; Kyle D Rudser; Mo Chen; Gregg D Meekins; Edgar Peña; Timothy Feyma; Kay Bawroski; Christina Bush; Bernadette T Gillick Journal: Clin EEG Neurosci Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: Mayank Jog; Cole Anderson; Elizabeth Kim; Avery Garrett; Antoni Kubicki; Sara Gonzalez; Kay Jann; Marco Iacoboni; Roger Woods; Danny Jj Wang; Katherine L Narr Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: A J Woods; A Antal; M Bikson; P S Boggio; A R Brunoni; P Celnik; L G Cohen; F Fregni; C S Herrmann; E S Kappenman; H Knotkova; D Liebetanz; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; W Paulus; A Priori; D Reato; C Stagg; N Wenderoth; M A Nitsche Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-11-22 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Aprinda Indahlastari; Alejandro Albizu; Jessica N Kraft; Andrew O'Shea; Nicole R Nissim; Ayden L Dunn; Daniela Carballo; Michael P Gordon; Shreya Taank; Alex T Kahn; Cindy Hernandez; William M Zucker; Adam J Woods Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 8.955