Ole Seibt1, Andre R Brunoni2, Yu Huang3, Marom Bikson3. 1. Department of Medical Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of City University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: seibt.ole@gmail.com. 2. Department and Institute of Psychiatry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dose of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is defined by electrode montage and current, while the resulting brain current flow is more complex and varies across individuals. The left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex (lDLPFC) is a common target in neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry applications, with varied approaches used to experimentally position electrodes on subjects. OBJECTIVE: To predict brain current flow intensity and distribution using conventional symmetrical bicephalic frontal 1 × 1 electrode montages to nominally target lDLPFC in forward modeling studies. METHODS: Six high-resolution Finite Element Method (FEM) models were created from five subjects of varied head size and an MNI standard. Seven electrode positioning methods, nominally targeting lDLPFC, were investigated on each head model: the EEG 10-10 including F3-F4, F5-F6, F7-8, F9-F10, the Beam F3-System, the 5-5 cm-Rule and the developed OLE-System were evaluated as electrode positioning methods for 5 × 5 cm(2) rectangular sponge-pad electrodes. RESULTS: Each positioning approach resulted in distinct electrode positions on the scalp and variations in brain current flow. Variability was significant, but trends across montages and between subjects were identified. Factors enhancing electric field intensity and relative targeting in lDLPFC include increased inter-electrode distance and proximity to thinner skull structures. CONCLUSION: Brain current flow can be shaped, but not focused, across frontal cortex by tDCS montages, including intensity at lDLPFC. The OLE-system balances lDLPFC targeting and reduced electric field variability, along with clinical ease-of-use.
BACKGROUND: The dose of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is defined by electrode montage and current, while the resulting brain current flow is more complex and varies across individuals. The left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex (lDLPFC) is a common target in neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry applications, with varied approaches used to experimentally position electrodes on subjects. OBJECTIVE: To predict brain current flow intensity and distribution using conventional symmetrical bicephalic frontal 1 × 1 electrode montages to nominally target lDLPFC in forward modeling studies. METHODS: Six high-resolution Finite Element Method (FEM) models were created from five subjects of varied head size and an MNI standard. Seven electrode positioning methods, nominally targeting lDLPFC, were investigated on each head model: the EEG 10-10 including F3-F4, F5-F6, F7-8, F9-F10, the Beam F3-System, the 5-5 cm-Rule and the developed OLE-System were evaluated as electrode positioning methods for 5 × 5 cm(2) rectangular sponge-pad electrodes. RESULTS: Each positioning approach resulted in distinct electrode positions on the scalp and variations in brain current flow. Variability was significant, but trends across montages and between subjects were identified. Factors enhancing electric field intensity and relative targeting in lDLPFC include increased inter-electrode distance and proximity to thinner skull structures. CONCLUSION: Brain current flow can be shaped, but not focused, across frontal cortex by tDCS montages, including intensity at lDLPFC. The OLE-system balances lDLPFC targeting and reduced electric field variability, along with clinical ease-of-use.
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
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: Bernardo Sampaio-Junior; Gabriel Tortella; Lucas Borrione; Adriano H Moffa; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Eric Cretaz; Adriano Fernandes da Silva; Renério Fraguas; Luana V Aparício; Izio Klein; Beny Lafer; Stephan Goerigk; Isabela Martins Benseñor; Paulo Andrade Lotufo; Wagner F Gattaz; André Russowsky Brunoni Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Leigh E Charvet; Bryan Dobbs; Michael T Shaw; Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta; Lauren B Krupp Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 6.312
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: Gabriel Tortella; Bernardo Sampaio-Junior; Marina L Moreno; Adriano H Moffa; Adriano Fernandes da Silva; Beny Lafer; Paulo Andrade Lotufo; Wagner Gattaz; Lucas Borrione; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Stephan Goerigk; Isabela M Benseñor; Andre R Brunoni Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 5.270