OBJECTIVE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) aims to alter brain function non-invasively via electrodes placed on the scalp. Conventional tDCS uses two relatively large patch electrodes to deliver electrical current to the brain region of interest (ROI). Recent studies have shown that using dense arrays containing up to 512 smaller electrodes may increase the precision of targeting ROIs. However, this creates a need for methods to determine effective and safe stimulus patterns as the number of degrees of freedom is much higher with such arrays. Several approaches to this problem have appeared in the literature. In this paper, we describe a new method for calculating optimal electrode stimulus patterns for targeted and directional modulation in dense array tDCS which differs in some important aspects with methods reported to date. APPROACH: We optimize stimulus pattern of dense arrays with fixed electrode placement to maximize the current density in a particular direction in the ROI. We impose a flexible set of safety constraints on the current power in the brain, individual electrode currents, and total injected current, to protect subject safety. The proposed optimization problem is convex and thus efficiently solved using existing optimization software to find unique and globally optimal electrode stimulus patterns. MAIN RESULTS: Solutions for four anatomical ROIs based on a realistic head model are shown as exemplary results. To illustrate the differences between our approach and previously introduced methods, we compare our method with two of the other leading methods in the literature. We also report on extensive simulations that show the effect of the values chosen for each proposed safety constraint bound on the optimized stimulus patterns. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed optimization approach employs volume based ROIs, easily adapts to different sets of safety constraints, and takes negligible time to compute. An in-depth comparison study gives insight into the relationship between different objective criteria and optimized stimulus patterns. In addition, the analysis of the interaction between optimized stimulus patterns and safety constraint bounds suggests that more precise current localization in the ROI, with improved safety criterion, may be achieved by careful selection of the constraint bounds.
OBJECTIVE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) aims to alter brain function non-invasively via electrodes placed on the scalp. Conventional tDCS uses two relatively large patch electrodes to deliver electrical current to the brain region of interest (ROI). Recent studies have shown that using dense arrays containing up to 512 smaller electrodes may increase the precision of targeting ROIs. However, this creates a need for methods to determine effective and safe stimulus patterns as the number of degrees of freedom is much higher with such arrays. Several approaches to this problem have appeared in the literature. In this paper, we describe a new method for calculating optimal electrode stimulus patterns for targeted and directional modulation in dense array tDCS which differs in some important aspects with methods reported to date. APPROACH: We optimize stimulus pattern of dense arrays with fixed electrode placement to maximize the current density in a particular direction in the ROI. We impose a flexible set of safety constraints on the current power in the brain, individual electrode currents, and total injected current, to protect subject safety. The proposed optimization problem is convex and thus efficiently solved using existing optimization software to find unique and globally optimal electrode stimulus patterns. MAIN RESULTS: Solutions for four anatomical ROIs based on a realistic head model are shown as exemplary results. To illustrate the differences between our approach and previously introduced methods, we compare our method with two of the other leading methods in the literature. We also report on extensive simulations that show the effect of the values chosen for each proposed safety constraint bound on the optimized stimulus patterns. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed optimization approach employs volume based ROIs, easily adapts to different sets of safety constraints, and takes negligible time to compute. An in-depth comparison study gives insight into the relationship between different objective criteria and optimized stimulus patterns. In addition, the analysis of the interaction between optimized stimulus patterns and safety constraint bounds suggests that more precise current localization in the ROI, with improved safety criterion, may be achieved by careful selection of the constraint bounds.
Authors: Michael A Nitsche; Astrid Schauenburg; Nicolas Lang; David Liebetanz; Cornelia Exner; Walter Paulus; Frithjof Tergau Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Felipe Fregni; Paulo S Boggio; Michael A Nitsche; Marco A Marcolin; Sergio P Rigonatti; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Tim Wagner; Felipe Fregni; Shirley Fecteau; Alan Grodzinsky; Markus Zahn; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-02-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Paulo S Boggio; Felix Bermpohl; Adriana O Vergara; Ana L C R Muniz; Fernanda H Nahas; Priscila B Leme; Sergio P Rigonatti; Felipe Fregni Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Paulo S Boggio; Sergio P Rigonatti; Rafael B Ribeiro; Martin L Myczkowski; Michael A Nitsche; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Felipe Fregni Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: L D J Fiederer; J Vorwerk; F Lucka; M Dannhauer; S Yang; M Dümpelmann; A Schulze-Bonhage; A Aertsen; O Speck; C H Wolters; T Ball Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Mariano Fernández-Corazza; Sergei Turovets; Phan Luu; Erik Anderson; Don Tucker Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Yu Huang; Anli A Liu; Belen Lafon; Daniel Friedman; Michael Dayan; Xiuyuan Wang; Marom Bikson; Werner K Doyle; Orrin Devinsky; Lucas C Parra Journal: Elife Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Mark D Holmes; Rui Feng; Mackenzie V Wise; Chengxin Ma; Ceon Ramon; Jinsong Wu; Phan Luu; Jidong Hou; Li Pan; Don M Tucker Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Jens Allaert; Rudi De Raedt; Frederik M van der Veen; Chris Baeken; Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379