Literature DB >> 29288869

Human in-vivo brain magnetic resonance current density imaging (MRCDI).

Cihan Göksu1, Lars G Hanson1, Hartwig R Siebner2, Philipp Ehses3, Klaus Scheffler4, Axel Thielscher5.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance current density imaging (MRCDI) and MR electrical impedance tomography (MREIT) are two emerging modalities, which combine weak time-varying currents injected via surface electrodes with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to acquire information about the current flow and ohmic conductivity distribution at high spatial resolution. The injected current flow creates a magnetic field in the head, and the component of the induced magnetic field ΔBz,c parallel to the main scanner field causes small shifts in the precession frequency of the magnetization. The measured MRI signal is modulated by these shifts, allowing to determine ΔBz,c for the reconstruction of the current flow and ohmic conductivity. Here, we demonstrate reliable ΔBz,c measurements in-vivo in the human brain based on multi-echo spin echo (MESE) and steady-state free precession free induction decay (SSFP-FID) sequences. In a series of experiments, we optimize their robustness for in-vivo measurements while maintaining a good sensitivity to the current-induced fields. We validate both methods by assessing the linearity of the measured ΔBz,c with respect to the current strength. For the more efficient SSFP-FID measurements, we demonstrate a strong influence of magnetic stray fields on the ΔBz,c images, caused by non-ideal paths of the electrode cables, and validate a correction method. Finally, we perform measurements with two different current injection profiles in five subjects. We demonstrate reliable recordings of ΔBz,c fields as weak as 1 nT, caused by currents of 1 mA strength. Comparison of the ΔBz,c measurements with simulated ΔBz,c images based on FEM calculations and individualized head models reveals significant linear correlations in all subjects, but only for the stray field-corrected data. As final step, we reconstruct current density distributions from the measured and simulated ΔBz,c data. Reconstructions from non-corrected ΔBz,c measurements systematically overestimate the current densities. Comparing the current densities reconstructed from corrected ΔBz,c measurements and from simulated ΔBz,c images reveals an average coefficient of determination R2 of 71%. In addition, it shows that the simulations underestimated the current strength on average by 24%. Our results open up the possibility of using MRI to systematically validate and optimize numerical field simulations that play an important role in several neuroscience applications, such as transcranial brain stimulation, and electro- and magnetoencephalography.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Current-induced magnetic field; In-vivo imaging; Magnetic resonance current density imaging; Multi-echo spin echo; Steady-state free precession free induction decay

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29288869     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.075

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of concurrent tES-fMRI studies (ContES checklist): a consensus study and statement.

Authors:  Hamed Ekhtiari; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Axel Thielscher; Andrea Antal; Lucia M Li; A Duke Shereen; Yuranny Cabral-Calderin; Daniel Keeser; Til Ole Bergmann; Asif Jamil; Ines R Violante; Jorge Almeida; Marcus Meinzer; Hartwig R Siebner; Adam J Woods; Charlotte J Stagg; Rany Abend; Daria Antonenko; Tibor Auer; Marc Bächinger; Chris Baeken; Helen C Barron; Henry W Chase; Jenny Crinion; Abhishek Datta; Matthew H Davis; Mohsen Ebrahimi; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Brian Falcone; Valentina Fiori; Iman Ghodratitoostani; Gadi Gilam; Roland H Grabner; Joel D Greenspan; Georg Groen; Gesa Hartwigsen; Tobias U Hauser; Christoph S Herrmann; Chi-Hung Juan; Bart Krekelberg; Stephanie Lefebvre; Sook-Lei Liew; Kristoffer H Madsen; Rasoul Mahdavifar-Khayati; Nastaran Malmir; Paola Marangolo; Andrew K Martin; Timothy J Meeker; Hossein Mohaddes Ardabili; Marius Moisa; Davide Momi; Beni Mulyana; Alexander Opitz; Natasza Orlov; Patrick Ragert; Christian C Ruff; Giulio Ruffini; Michaela Ruttorf; Arshiya Sangchooli; Klaus Schellhorn; Gottfried Schlaug; Bernhard Sehm; Ghazaleh Soleimani; Hosna Tavakoli; Benjamin Thompson; Dagmar Timmann; Aki Tsuchiyagaito; Martin Ulrich; Johannes Vosskuhl; Christiane A Weinrich; Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Xiaochu Zhang; Benedikt Zoefel; Michael A Nitsche; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 17.021

2.  Magnetic-resonance-based measurement of electromagnetic fields and conductivity in vivo using single current administration-A machine learning approach.

Authors:  Saurav Z K Sajib; Munish Chauhan; Oh In Kwon; Rosalind J Sadleir
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation-ROAST-a fully automated open-source pipeline.

Authors:  Yu Huang; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson; Lucas C Parra
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 4.  Methodology for tDCS integration with fMRI.

Authors:  Zeinab Esmaeilpour; A Duke Shereen; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Abhishek Datta; Adam J Woods; Maria Ironside; Jacinta O'Shea; Ulrich Kirk; Marom Bikson; Hamed Ekhtiari
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 5.  Can Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Localize Brain Function?

Authors:  Anke Ninija Karabanov; Guilherme Bicalho Saturnino; Axel Thielscher; Hartwig Roman Siebner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-19

6.  Anisotropic conductivity tensor imaging for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging (MR-DTI).

Authors:  Mun Bae Lee; Hyung Joong Kim; Eung Je Woo; Oh In Kwon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Concurrent Imaging of Markers of Current Flow and Neurophysiological Changes During tDCS.

Authors:  Mayank Jog; Kay Jann; Lirong Yan; Yu Huang; Lucas Parra; Katherine Narr; Marom Bikson; Danny J J Wang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  In-vivo imaging of targeting and modulation of depression-relevant circuitry by transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mayank S Jog; Elizabeth Kim; Cole Anderson; Antoni Kubicki; Rishikesh Kayathi; Kay Jann; Lirong Yan; Amber Leaver; Gerhard Hellemann; Marco Iacoboni; Roger P Woods; Danny J J Wang; Katherine L Narr
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 6.222

9.  Machine learning and individual variability in electric field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response.

Authors:  Alejandro Albizu; Ruogu Fang; Aprinda Indahlastari; Andrew O'Shea; Skylar E Stolte; Kyle B See; Emanuel M Boutzoukas; Jessica N Kraft; Nicole R Nissim; Adam J Woods
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 8.955

10.  Accurate and robust whole-head segmentation from magnetic resonance images for individualized head modeling.

Authors:  Oula Puonti; Koen Van Leemput; Guilherme B Saturnino; Hartwig R Siebner; Kristoffer H Madsen; Axel Thielscher
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.