Literature DB >> 30321643

Inherent physiological artifacts in EEG during tDCS.

Nigel Gebodh1, Zeinab Esmaeilpour2, Devin Adair3, Kenneth Chelette4, Jacek Dmochowski5, Adam J Woods6, Emily S Kappenman7, Lucas C Parra8, Marom Bikson9.   

Abstract

Online imaging and neuromodulation is invalid if stimulation distorts measurements beyond the point of accurate measurement. In theory, combining transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) with electroencephalography (EEG) is compelling, as both use non-invasive electrodes and image-guided dose can be informed by the reciprocity principle. To distinguish real changes in EEG from stimulation artifacts, prior studies applied conventional signal processing techniques (e.g. high-pass filtering, ICA). Here, we address the assumptions underlying the suitability of these approaches. We distinguish physiological artifacts - defined as artifacts resulting from interactions between the stimulation induced voltage and the body and so inherent regardless of tDCS or EEG hardware performance - from methodology-related artifacts - arising from non-ideal experimental conditions or non-ideal stimulation and recording equipment performance. Critically, we identify inherent physiological artifacts which are present in all online EEG-tDCS: 1) cardiac distortion and 2) ocular motor distortion. In conjunction, non-inherent physiological artifacts which can be minimized in most experimental conditions include: 1) motion and 2) myogenic distortion. Artifact dynamics were analyzed for varying stimulation parameters (montage, polarity, current) and stimulation hardware. Together with concurrent physiological monitoring (ECG, respiration, ocular, EMG, head motion), and current flow modeling, each physiological artifact was explained by biological source-specific body impedance changes, leading to incremental changes in scalp DC voltage that are significantly larger than real neural signals. Because these artifacts modulate the DC voltage and scale with applied current, they are dose specific such that their contamination cannot be accounted for by conventional experimental controls (e.g. differing stimulation montage or current as a control). Moreover, because the EEG artifacts introduced by physiologic processes during tDCS are high dimensional (as indicated by Generalized Singular Value Decomposition- GSVD), non-stationary, and overlap highly with neurogenic frequencies, these artifacts cannot be easily removed with conventional signal processing techniques. Spatial filtering techniques (GSVD) suggest that the removal of physiological artifacts would significantly degrade signal integrity. Physiological artifacts, as defined here, would emerge only during tDCS, thus processing techniques typically applied to EEG in the absence of tDCS would not be suitable for artifact removal during tDCS. All concurrent EEG-tDCS must account for physiological artifacts that are a) present regardless of equipment used, and b) broadband and confound a broad range of experiments (e.g. oscillatory activity and event related potentials). Removal of these artifacts requires the recognition of their non-stationary, physiology-specific dynamics, and individualized nature. We present a broad taxonomy of artifacts (non/stimulation related), and suggest possible approaches and challenges to denoising online EEG-tDCS stimulation artifacts.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrocardiogram (ECG); Electroencephalography (EEG); Finite element method (FEM); Physiological artifact; Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); Transcranial electric stimulation (tES)

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30321643      PMCID: PMC6289749          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.025

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


  69 in total

1.  Effects of electrode density and electrolyte spreading in dense array electroencephalographic recording.

Authors:  Lawrence L Greischar; Cory A Burghy; Carien M van Reekum; Daren C Jackson; Diego A Pizzagalli; Corrina Mueller; Richard J Davidson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Enhances the Excitability of Trigemino-Facial Reflex Circuits.

Authors:  Christopher Cabib; Federica Cipullo; Merche Morales; Josep Valls-Solé
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Scalp electrical recording during paralysis: quantitative evidence that EEG frequencies above 20 Hz are contaminated by EMG.

Authors:  Emma M Whitham; Kenneth J Pope; Sean P Fitzgibbon; Trent Lewis; C Richard Clark; Stephen Loveless; Marita Broberg; Angus Wallace; Dylan DeLosAngeles; Peter Lillie; Andrew Hardy; Rik Fronsko; Alyson Pulbrook; John O Willoughby
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 3.708

4.  Effects of Stimulus Size and Contrast on the Initial Primary Visual Cortical Response in Humans.

Authors:  Nigel Gebodh; M Isabel Vanegas; Simon P Kelly
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Asif Rahman; Abhishek Datta
Journal:  Clin EEG Neurosci       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.843

6.  Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS.

Authors:  Preet Minhas; Varun Bansal; Jinal Patel; Johnson S Ho; Julian Diaz; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Facial and jaw-elevator EMG activity in relation to changes in performance level during a sustained information processing task.

Authors:  W Waterink; A van Boxtel
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 3.251

8.  The effects of electrode impedance on data quality and statistical significance in ERP recordings.

Authors:  Emily S Kappenman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Identifying electrode bridging from electrical distance distributions: a survey of publicly-available EEG data using a new method.

Authors:  Daniel M Alschuler; Craig E Tenke; Gerard E Bruder; Jürgen Kayser
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 3.708

10.  Clinically Effective Treatment of Fibromyalgia Pain With High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Phase II Open-Label Dose Optimization.

Authors:  Laura Castillo-Saavedra; Nigel Gebodh; Marom Bikson; Camilo Diaz-Cruz; Rivail Brandao; Livia Coutinho; Dennis Truong; Abhishek Datta; Revital Shani-Hershkovich; Michal Weiss; Ilan Laufer; Amit Reches; Ziv Peremen; Amir Geva; Lucas C Parra; Felipe Fregni
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 5.820

View more
  6 in total

1.  Electrophysiology equipment for reliable study of kHz electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Mohamad FallahRad; Adantchede Louis Zannou; Niranjan Khadka; Steven A Prescott; Stéphanie Ratté; Tianhe Zhang; Rosana Esteller; Brad Hershey; Marom Bikson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 2.  Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.

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

3.  Network-level mechanisms underlying effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on visuomotor learning.

Authors:  Pejman Sehatpour; Clément Dondé; Matthew J Hoptman; Johanna Kreither; Devin Adair; Elisa Dias; Blair Vail; Stephanie Rohrig; Gail Silipo; Javier Lopez-Calderon; Antigona Martinez; Daniel C Javitt
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Amplitude modulated transcranial alternating current stimulation (AM-TACS) efficacy evaluation via phosphene induction.

Authors:  Carsten Thiele; Tino Zaehle; Aiden Haghikia; Philipp Ruhnau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Dataset of concurrent EEG, ECG, and behavior with multiple doses of transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Nigel Gebodh; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 6.444

6.  Convolutional Neural Network for Drowsiness Detection Using EEG Signals.

Authors:  Siwar Chaabene; Bassem Bouaziz; Amal Boudaya; Anita Hökelmann; Achraf Ammar; Lotfi Chaari
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.