Literature DB >> 27125841

Using reciprocity for relating the simulation of transcranial current stimulation to the EEG forward problem.

S Wagner1, F Lucka2, J Vorwerk1, C S Herrmann3, G Nolte4, M Burger5, C H Wolters6.   

Abstract

To explore the relationship between transcranial current stimulation (tCS) and the electroencephalography (EEG) forward problem, we investigate and compare accuracy and efficiency of a reciprocal and a direct EEG forward approach for dipolar primary current sources both based on the finite element method (FEM), namely the adjoint approach (AA) and the partial integration approach in conjunction with a transfer matrix concept (PI). By analyzing numerical results, comparing to analytically derived EEG forward potentials and estimating computational complexity in spherical shell models, AA turns out to be essentially identical to PI. It is then proven that AA and PI are also algebraically identical even for general head models. This relation offers a direct link between the EEG forward problem and tCS. We then demonstrate how the quasi-analytical EEG forward solutions in sphere models can be used to validate the numerical accuracies of FEM-based tCS simulation approaches. These approaches differ with respect to the ease with which they can be employed for realistic head modeling based on MRI-derived segmentations. We show that while the accuracy of the most easy to realize approach based on regular hexahedral elements is already quite high, it can be significantly improved if a geometry-adaptation of the elements is employed in conjunction with an isoparametric FEM approach. While the latter approach does not involve any additional difficulties for the user, it reaches the high accuracies of surface-segmentation based tetrahedral FEM, which is considerably more difficult to implement and topologically less flexible in practice. Finally, in a highly realistic head volume conductor model and when compared to the regular alternative, the geometry-adapted hexahedral FEM is shown to result in significant changes in tCS current flow orientation and magnitude up to 45° and a factor of 1.66, respectively.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EEG forward problem; Evaluation in realistic head model; Finite element method; Reciprocity; Transcranial current stimulation; Validation in multilayer sphere model

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27125841     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.005

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


  11 in total

1.  Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS.

Authors:  Nigel Gebodh; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Kenneth Chelette; Jacek Dmochowski; Adam J Woods; Emily S Kappenman; Lucas C Parra; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: a comparison study.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Munish Chauhan; Rosalind J Sadleir
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  Sustained neural rhythms reveal endogenous oscillations supporting speech perception.

Authors:  Sander van Bree; Ediz Sohoglu; Matthew H Davis; Benedikt Zoefel
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 8.029

4.  Boundary element fast multipole method for modeling electrical brain stimulation with voltage and current electrodes.

Authors:  Sergey N Makarov; Laleh Golestanirad; William A Wartman; Bach Thanh Nguyen; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki P Ahveninen; Kyoko Fujimoto; Konstantin Weise; Aapo R Nummenmaa
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Sports Performance.

Authors:  Dylan J Edwards; Mar Cortes; Susan Wortman-Jutt; David Putrino; Marom Bikson; Gary Thickbroom; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  The effect of stimulation type, head modeling, and combined EEG and MEG on the source reconstruction of the somatosensory P20/N20 component.

Authors:  Marios Antonakakis; Sophie Schrader; Andreas Wollbrink; Robert Oostenveld; Stefan Rampp; Jens Haueisen; Carsten H Wolters
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  A flexible workflow for simulating transcranial electric stimulation in healthy and lesioned brains.

Authors:  Benjamin Kalloch; Pierre-Louis Bazin; Arno Villringer; Bernhard Sehm; Mario Hlawitschka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Zoomed MRI Guided by Combined EEG/MEG Source Analysis: A Multimodal Approach for Optimizing Presurgical Epilepsy Work-up and its Application in a Multi-focal Epilepsy Patient Case Study.

Authors:  Ü Aydin; S Rampp; A Wollbrink; H Kugel; J -H Cho; T R Knösche; C Grova; J Wellmer; C H Wolters
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  The Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element Method for Solving the MEG and the Combined MEG/EEG Forward Problem.

Authors:  Maria Carla Piastra; Andreas Nüßing; Johannes Vorwerk; Harald Bornfleth; Robert Oostenveld; Christian Engwer; Carsten H Wolters
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  A comprehensive study on electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography sensitivity to cortical and subcortical sources.

Authors:  Maria Carla Piastra; Andreas Nüßing; Johannes Vorwerk; Maureen Clerc; Christian Engwer; Carsten H Wolters
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 5.399

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.