Carys Evans1, Clarissa Bachmann2, Jenny S A Lee2, Evridiki Gregoriou2, Nick Ward2, Sven Bestmann3. 1. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. Electronic address: carys.evans@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. 3. Department for Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK; Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable effects limit the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a research and therapeutic tool. Conventional application of a fixed-dose of tDCS does not account for inter-individual differences in anatomy (e.g. skull thickness), which varies the amount of current reaching the brain. Individualised dose-control may reduce the variable effects of tDCS by reducing variability in electric field (E-field) intensities at a cortical target site. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the variability in E-field intensity at a cortical site (left primary motor cortex; M1) and throughout the brain for conventional fixed-dose tDCS, and individualised dose-controlled tDCS. METHODS: The intensity and distribution of the E-field during tDCS was estimated using Realistic Volumetric Approach to Simulate Transcranial Electric Stimulation (ROAST) in 50 individual brain scans taken from the Human Connectome Project, for fixed-dose tDCS (1 mA & 2 mA) and individualised dose-controlled tDCS targeting left M1. RESULTS: With a fixed-dose (1 mA & 2 mA), E-field intensity in left M1 varied by more than 100% across individuals, with substantial variation observed throughout the brain as well. Individualised dose-control ensured the same E-field intensity was delivered to left M1 in all individuals. Its variance in other regions of interest (right M1 and area underneath the electrodes) was comparable with fixed- and individualised-dose. CONCLUSIONS: Individualised dose-control can eliminate the variance in E-field intensities at a cortical target site. Assuming that the current delivered to the brain directly determines its physiological and behavioural consequences, this approach may allow for reducing the known variability of tDCS effects.
BACKGROUND: Variable effects limit the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a research and therapeutic tool. Conventional application of a fixed-dose of tDCS does not account for inter-individual differences in anatomy (e.g. skull thickness), which varies the amount of current reaching the brain. Individualised dose-control may reduce the variable effects of tDCS by reducing variability in electric field (E-field) intensities at a cortical target site. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the variability in E-field intensity at a cortical site (left primary motor cortex; M1) and throughout the brain for conventional fixed-dose tDCS, and individualised dose-controlled tDCS. METHODS: The intensity and distribution of the E-field during tDCS was estimated using Realistic Volumetric Approach to Simulate Transcranial Electric Stimulation (ROAST) in 50 individual brain scans taken from the Human Connectome Project, for fixed-dose tDCS (1 mA & 2 mA) and individualised dose-controlled tDCS targeting left M1. RESULTS: With a fixed-dose (1 mA & 2 mA), E-field intensity in left M1 varied by more than 100% across individuals, with substantial variation observed throughout the brain as well. Individualised dose-control ensured the same E-field intensity was delivered to left M1 in all individuals. Its variance in other regions of interest (right M1 and area underneath the electrodes) was comparable with fixed- and individualised-dose. CONCLUSIONS: Individualised dose-control can eliminate the variance in E-field intensities at a cortical target site. Assuming that the current delivered to the brain directly determines its physiological and behavioural consequences, this approach may allow for reducing the known variability of tDCS effects.
Authors: Jasmina Paneva; Inge Leunissen; Teresa Schuhmann; Tom A de Graaf; Morten Gørtz Jønsson; Balder Onarheim; Alexander T Sack Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: Sagarika Bhattacharjee; Rajan Kashyap; Alicia M Goodwill; Beth Ann O'Brien; Brenda Rapp; Kenichi Oishi; John E Desmond; S H Annabel Chen Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 9.184
Authors: Rajan Kashyap; Sagarika Bhattacharjee; Ramaswamy Arumugam; Kenichi Oishi; John E Desmond; Sh Annabel Chen Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: C R Faucher; R A Doherty; N S Philip; A S M Harle; J J E Cole; M Van't Wout-Frank Journal: Behav Neurosci Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 1.912