Literature DB >> 30594684

A principled approach to conductivity uncertainty analysis in electric field calculations.

Guilherme B Saturnino1, Axel Thielscher1, Kristoffer H Madsen2, Thomas R Knösche3, Konstantin Weise4.   

Abstract

Uncertainty surrounding ohmic tissue conductivity impedes accurate calculation of the electric fields generated by non-invasive brain stimulation. We present an efficient and generic technique for uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, which quantifies the reliability of field estimates and identifies the most influential parameters. For this purpose, we employ a non-intrusive generalized polynomial chaos expansion to compactly approximate the multidimensional dependency of the field on the conductivities. We demonstrate that the proposed pipeline yields detailed insight into the uncertainty of field estimates for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), identifies the most relevant tissue conductivities, and highlights characteristic differences between stimulation methods. Specifically, we test the influence of conductivity variations on (i) the magnitude of the electric field generated at each gray matter location, (ii) its normal component relative to the cortical sheet, (iii) its overall magnitude (indexed by the 98th percentile), and (iv) its overall spatial distribution. We show that TMS fields are generally less affected by conductivity variations than tDCS fields. For both TMS and tDCS, conductivity uncertainty causes much higher uncertainty in the magnitude as compared to the direction and overall spatial distribution of the electric field. Whereas the TMS fields were predominantly influenced by gray and white matter conductivity, the tDCS fields were additionally dependent on skull and scalp conductivities. Comprehensive uncertainty analyses of complex systems achieved by the proposed technique are not possible with classical methods, such as Monte Carlo sampling, without extreme computational effort. In addition, our method has the advantages of directly yielding interpretable and intuitive output metrics and of being easily adaptable to new problems.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Non-invasive brain stimulation; Numerical methods; Sensitivity analysis; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Uncertainty analysis

Year:  2018        PMID: 30594684     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.053

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


  14 in total

1.  Conditions for numerically accurate TMS electric field simulation.

Authors:  Luis J Gomez; Moritz Dannhauer; Lari M Koponen; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Guidelines for Burr Hole Surgery in Combination With Tumor Treating Fields for Glioblastoma: A Computational Study on Dose Optimization and Array Layout Planning.

Authors:  Fang Cao; Nikola Mikic; Eric T Wong; Axel Thielscher; Anders Rosendal Korshoej
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 3.473

3.  Shamo: A Tool for Electromagnetic Modeling, Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis of the Head.

Authors:  Martin Grignard; Christophe Geuzaine; Christophe Phillips
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2022-03-10

4.  Uncertainty quantification of TMS simulations considering MRI segmentation errors.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Luis Gomez; Johann Guilleminot
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Weak rTMS-induced electric fields produce neural entrainment in humans.

Authors:  Elina Zmeykina; Matthias Mittner; Walter Paulus; Zsolt Turi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Left parietal tACS at alpha frequency induces a shift of visuospatial attention.

Authors:  Teresa Schuhmann; Selma K Kemmerer; Felix Duecker; Tom A de Graaf; Sanne Ten Oever; Peter De Weerd; Alexander T Sack
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Uncertainty in model-based treatment decision support: Applied to aortic valve stenosis.

Authors:  Roel Meiburg; Wouter Huberts; Marcel C M Rutten; Frans N van de Vosse
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 2.747

8.  Age-Related EEG Power Reductions Cannot Be Explained by Changes of the Conductivity Distribution in the Head Due to Brain Atrophy.

Authors:  Mingjian He; Feng Liu; Aapo Nummenmaa; Matti Hämäläinen; Bradford C Dickerson; Patrick L Purdon
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 5.750

9.  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

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.