Aprinda Indahlastari1, Alejandro Albizu2, Andrew O'Shea2, Megan A Forbes2, Nicole R Nissim3, Jessica N Kraft2, Nicole D Evangelista2, Hanna K Hausman2, Adam J Woods2. 1. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: aprinda.indahlas@phhp.ufl.edu. 2. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Varying treatment outcomes in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) recipients may depend on the amount of current reaching the brain. Brain atrophy associated with normal aging may affect tES current delivery to the brain. Computational models have been employed to compute predicted tES current inside the brain. This study is the largest study that uses computational models to investigate tES field distribution in healthy older adults. METHODS: Individualized head models from 587 healthy older adults (mean = 73.9years, 51-95 years) were constructed to create field maps. Two electrode montages (F3-F4, M1-SO) with 2 mA input current were modeled using ROAST with modified codes. A customized template of healthy older adults, the UFAB-587, was created from the same dataset and used to warp individual brains into the same space. Warped models were analyzed to determine the relationship between computed field measures, brain atrophy and age. MAIN RESULTS: Computed field measures were inversely correlated with brain atrophy (R2 = 0.0829, p = 1.14e-12). Field pattern showed negative correlation with age in brain sub-regions including part of DLPFC and precentral gyrus. Mediation analysis revealed that the negative correlation between age and current density is partially mediated by brain-to-CSF ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Computed field measures showed decreasing amount of tES current reaching the brain with increasing atrophy. Therefore, adjusting current dose by modifying tES stimulation parameters in older adults based on degree of atrophy may be necessary to achieve desired stimulation benefits. Results from this study may inform future tES application in healthy older adults.
BACKGROUND: Varying treatment outcomes in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) recipients may depend on the amount of current reaching the brain. Brain atrophy associated with normal aging may affect tES current delivery to the brain. Computational models have been employed to compute predicted tES current inside the brain. This study is the largest study that uses computational models to investigate tES field distribution in healthy older adults. METHODS: Individualized head models from 587 healthy older adults (mean = 73.9years, 51-95 years) were constructed to create field maps. Two electrode montages (F3-F4, M1-SO) with 2 mA input current were modeled using ROAST with modified codes. A customized template of healthy older adults, the UFAB-587, was created from the same dataset and used to warp individual brains into the same space. Warped models were analyzed to determine the relationship between computed field measures, brain atrophy and age. MAIN RESULTS: Computed field measures were inversely correlated with brain atrophy (R2 = 0.0829, p = 1.14e-12). Field pattern showed negative correlation with age in brain sub-regions including part of DLPFC and precentral gyrus. Mediation analysis revealed that the negative correlation between age and current density is partially mediated by brain-to-CSF ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Computed field measures showed decreasing amount of tES current reaching the brain with increasing atrophy. Therefore, adjusting current dose by modifying tES stimulation parameters in older adults based on degree of atrophy may be necessary to achieve desired stimulation benefits. Results from this study may inform future tES application in healthy older adults.
Authors: A K Kasinadhuni; A Indahlastari; M Chauhan; Michael Schär; T H Mareci; R J Sadleir Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Yu Huang; Jacek P Dmochowski; Yuzhuo Su; Abhishek Datta; Christopher Rorden; Lucas C Parra Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Kristina S Horne; Hannah L Filmer; Zoie E Nott; Ziarih Hawi; Kealan Pugsley; Jason B Mattingley; Paul E Dux Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: Theodore P Zanto; Kevin T Jones; Avery E Ostrand; Wan-Yu Hsu; Richard Campusano; Adam Gazzaley Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2021-09-01 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: 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
Authors: David J Clark; Sudeshna A Chatterjee; Jared W Skinner; Paige E Lysne; Chanoan Sumonthee; Samuel S Wu; Ronald A Cohen; Dorian K Rose; Adam J Woods Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-08-18