Literature DB >> 30420198

Methods to monitor accurate and consistent electrode placements in conventional transcranial electrical stimulation.

Aprinda Indahlastari1, Alejandro Albizu2, Nicole R Nissim2, Kelsey R Traeger2, Andrew O'Shea2, Adam J Woods2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate electrode placement and electrode drift during a transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) session have been shown to alter predicted field distributions in the brain and thus may contribute to a large variation in tES study outcomes. Currently, there is no objective and independent measure to quantify electrode placement accuracy/drift in tES clinical studies. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We proposed and tested novel methods to quantify accurate and consistent electrode placements in tES using models generated from a 3D scanner.
METHODS: Accurate electrode placements were quantified as Discrepancy in eight tES participants by comparing landmark distances of physical electrode locations F3/F4 to their model counterparts. Distances in models were computed using curve and linear based methods. Variability of landmark locations in a single subject was computed for multiple stimulation sessions to determine consistent electrode placements across four experimenters. MAIN
RESULTS: We obtained an average of 0.4 cm in Discrepancy, which was within the placement accuracy/drift threshold (1 cm) for conventional tES electrodes (∼35 cm2) to achieve reliable tES sessions suggested in the literature. Averaged Variability was 5.2%, with F4 electrode location as the least consistent placement.
CONCLUSIONS: These methods provide objective feedback for experimenters on their performance in placing tES electrodes. Applications of these methods can be used to monitor electrode locations in tES studies of a larger cohort using F3/F4 montage and other conventional electrode arrangements. Future studies may include co-registering the landmark locations with imaging-derived head models to quantify the effects of electrode accuracy/drift on predicted field distributions in the brain.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrode drift; Electrode placements; Quality control; tES

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30420198      PMCID: PMC6348875          DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.10.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  31 in total

1.  Systematic evaluation of the impact of stimulation intensity on neuroplastic after-effects induced by transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Asif Jamil; Giorgi Batsikadze; Hsiao-I Kuo; Ludovica Labruna; Alkomiet Hasan; Walter Paulus; Michael A Nitsche
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Effects of Electrode Drift in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.

Authors:  Adam J Woods; Vaughn Bryant; Daniela Sacchetti; Felix Gervits; Roy Hamilton
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 3.  Incomplete evidence that increasing current intensity of tDCS boosts outcomes.

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

4.  Testing assumptions on prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation: Comparison of electrode montages using multimodal fMRI.

Authors:  Jana Wörsching; Frank Padberg; Stephan Goerigk; Irmgard Heinz; Christine Bauer; Christian Plewnia; Alkomiet Hasan; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Daniel Keeser
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 5.  The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS.

Authors:  Sara Tremblay; Jean-François Lepage; Alex Latulipe-Loiselle; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Hugo Théoret
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 6.  Treatment-emergent mania/hypomania during antidepressant treatment with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  André R Brunoni; Adriano H Moffa; Bernardo Sampaio-Júnior; Verònica Gálvez; Colleen K Loo
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 8.955

7.  On the importance of precise electrode placement for targeted transcranial electric stimulation.

Authors:  Alexander Opitz; Erin Yeagle; Axel Thielscher; Charles Schroeder; Ashesh D Mehta; Michael P Milham
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 8.  Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain.

Authors:  Neil E O'Connell; Louise Marston; Sally Spencer; Lorraine H DeSouza; Benedict M Wand
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-13

9.  Spatiotemporal structure of intracranial electric fields induced by transcranial electric stimulation in humans and nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Alexander Opitz; Arnaud Falchier; Chao-Gan Yan; Erin M Yeagle; Gary S Linn; Pierre Megevand; Axel Thielscher; Ross Deborah A; Michael P Milham; Ashesh D Mehta; Charles E Schroeder
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Correction: Measurements and models of electric fields in the in vivo human brain during transcranial electric stimulation.

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:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 8.140

View more
  5 in total

1.  A novel technique for accurate electrode placement over cortical targets for transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) clinical trials.

Authors:  Mayank Jog; Cole Anderson; Elizabeth Kim; Avery Garrett; Antoni Kubicki; Sara Gonzalez; Kay Jann; Marco Iacoboni; Roger Woods; Danny Jj Wang; Katherine L Narr
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Pain relief for osteoarthritis through combined treatment (PROACT): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in non-Hispanic black and white adults with knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Roger B Fillingim; Adam J Woods; Hyochol Ahn; Samuel S Wu; David T Redden; Song Lai; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Georg Deutsch; Kimberly T Sibille; Roland Staud; Fadel Zeidan; Burel R Goodin
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Individualized tDCS modeling predicts functional connectivity changes within the working memory network in older adults.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Alejandro Albizu; Jessica N Kraft; Andrew O'Shea; Nicole R Nissim; Ayden L Dunn; Daniela Carballo; Michael P Gordon; Shreya Taank; Alex T Kahn; Cindy Hernandez; William M Zucker; Adam J Woods
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2021-08-08       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 4.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Remediate Age-Related Cognitive Decline in Healthy Older Adults.

Authors:  Aprinda Indahlastari; Cheshire Hardcastle; Alejandro Albizu; Stacey Alvarez-Alvarado; Emanuel M Boutzoukas; Nicole D Evangelista; Hanna K Hausman; Jessica Kraft; Kailey Langer; Adam J Woods
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.570

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.