| Literature DB >> 30627150 |
Aprinda Indahlastari1,2, Aditya K Kasinadhuni3,4, Christopher Saar1, Kevin Castellano3, Bakir Mousa1, Munish Chauhan1, Thomas H Mareci5, Rosalind J Sadleir1.
Abstract
Background: Phosphene generation is an objective physical measure of potential transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) biological side effects. Interpretations from phosphene analysis can serve as a first step in understanding underlying mechanisms of tACS in healthy human subjects and assist validation of computational models. Objective/Hypothesis: This preliminary study introduces and tests methods to analyze predicted phosphene occurrence using computational head models constructed from tACS recipients against verbal testimonies of phosphene sensations. Predicted current densities in the eyes and the occipital lobe were also verified against previously published threshold values for phosphenes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30627150 PMCID: PMC6304915 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8525706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Figure 1Electrode configurations placed on tACS recipients. Montages used were (a) T7-T8 and (b) Fpz-Oz. First named electrodes were anodes (red) and second named electrodes were cathodes (blue). Here, anodes denote electrodes used for initial positive pulses.
Figure 2Applied current waveform and corresponding frequency distribution. The current waveform used in this study was bipolar (10 Hz) and had an amplitude of 1.5 mA.
Literature-referenced tissue conductivities used in anisotropic head models. Values reported here are for tissue conductivity measured below 1 kHz. Averaged values were used if multiple tissue conductivity values below 1 kHz were found. Bone conductivity was calculated using the formula σ = (σcan·σcor)1/2 where σcan is cancellous and σcor is cortical tissue conductivity value. In isotropic models, white matter conductivity was assumed to be 0.3835 S/m.
| Tissue type | Conductivity values (S/m) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Air | 0 | — |
| Blood | 6.7 × 10–1 | Geddes and Baker (1967) |
| Bone∗ | 1.09 × 10–2 | Akhtari et al. (2002) |
| Cerebrospinal fluid | 1.8 | Baumann et al. (1997) |
| Fat | 2.5 × 10–2 | Gabriel et al. (1996) |
| Gray matter | 1.0 × 10–1 | Gabriel et al. (1996) |
| Muscle | 1.6 × 10–1 | Geddes and Baker (1967) |
| Sclera, lens | 5.0 × 10–1 | Gabriel et al. (1996) |
| Skin | 4.3 × 10–1 | Holdefer et al. (2006) |
| White matter | 1.2 × 100 (long.) | Geddes and Baker (1967) |
| 1.2 × 10–1 (trans.) |
Numerical ratings of phosphene perceptions by each subject. All subjects were asked to rate their phosphene perceptions from 1 to 10 with 1 being “no phosphenes” and 10 being a completely white field.
| T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | |
|---|---|---|
| Subject 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Subject 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Subject 3 | 3.5 | 4 |
| Subject 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Subject 5 | 3.5 | 6 |
| Subject 6 | 4 | 7 |
| Average | 3.5 | 6 |
Figure 3Predicted current density distributions in the central axial slice of individual ROIs. Images showing simulated current density maps for isotropic (left) and anisotropic (right) models in (a) EYE and (b) occipital lobe (OCC) ROIs. Subject numbers are shown in the top right corner of each current density image.
Figure 4Calculated median current density values in ROIs. All values exceeded the threshold current density assumed to induce phosphenes (1 mA/m2) [22].
Median current density %Js in both ROIs for isotropic and anisotropic models. %Js were calculated as the ratio of median current density to input current density for each electrode configuration.
| J (%) in eyes (isotropic) | J (%) in eyes (anisotropic) | |||
| T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | |
|
| ||||
| Subject 1 | 17 | 55 | 17 | 52 |
| Subject 2 | 37 | 54 | 35 | 52 |
| Subject 3 | 22 | 55 | 22 | 55 |
| Subject 4 | 15 | 47 | 15 | 47 |
| Subject 5 | 12 | 41 | 13 | 41 |
| Subject 6 | 9 | 43 | 10 | 43 |
| Average | 19 | 49 | 18 | 48 |
|
| ||||
| J (%) in OCC (isotropic) | J (%) in OCC (anisotropic) | |||
| T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | |
|
| ||||
| Subject 1 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Subject 2 | 6 | 16 | 6 | 15 |
| Subject 3 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 12 |
| Subject 4 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 12 |
| Subject 5 | 8 | 11 | 6 | 11 |
| Subject 6 | 13 | 17 | 7 | 14 |
| Average | 8 | 13 | 6 | 12 |
Coefficients of determination (R2) and association estimates with 95% confidence intervals for nonparametric local-linear regression model on logged current density data. All coefficients were significant (α < 0.05).
| Montage | R2 | Coefficients (logged data) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eye | Occipital, medial wall | Occipital, remainder | ||
| Fpz-Oz, iso | 0.33 | −0.206 (−0.27–0.12) | 0.214 (0.16, 0.27) | 0.764 (0.72, 0.82) |
| Fpz-Oz, aniso | 0.38 | −0.343 (−0.45, −0.21) | 0.178 (0.11, 0.23) | 0.101 (0.09, 0.17) |
| T7-T8, iso | 0.50 | 0.471 (0.41 0.54) | 0.298 (0.24, 0.36) | −0.016 (−0.08, 0.07) |
| T7-T8, aniso | 0.45 | 0.508 (0.46, 0.59) | 0.222 (0.17, 0.29) | 0.189 (0.16, 0.24) |
Figure 5Scatter plots comparing subject ratings and median current density percentages (%Js) for both Fpz-Oz and T7-T8 montages for (left) isotropic and (right) anisotropic models. Fit lines shown are to median data and illustrate trends only.
Predicted electric fields (EF) in the occipital lobe (OCC) for isotropic and anisotropic models. All computed electric fields were smaller than 28–79 V/m [7] or 1 V/m [9], the electric field action potential threshold for layer V pyramidal neurons and intact rat brain, respectively.
| EF (V/m) (isotropic) | EF (V/m) (anisotropic) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | T7-T8 | Fpz-Oz | |
| Subject 1 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.31 |
| Subject 2 | 0.25 | 0.63 | 0.23 | 0.61 |
| Subject 3 | 0.20 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.48 |
| Subject 4 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.50 |
| Subject 5 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.34 | 0.45 |
| Subject 6 | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 0.56 |
| Average | 0.32 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 0.48 |