Literature DB >> 33446802

Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes.

Ghazaleh Soleimani1, Mehrdad Saviz2, Marom Bikson3, Farzad Towhidkhah1, Rayus Kuplicki4, Martin P Paulus4, Hamed Ekhtiari4.   

Abstract

Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common "frontal" tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric "unilateral" (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric "bilateral" (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33446802      PMCID: PMC7809198          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80279-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  65 in total

1.  Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex.

Authors:  M A Nitsche; S Doemkes; T Karaköse; A Antal; D Liebetanz; N Lang; F Tergau; W Paulus
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Inter-subject Variability in Electric Fields of Motor Cortical tDCS.

Authors:  Ilkka Laakso; Satoshi Tanaka; Soichiro Koyama; Valerio De Santis; Akimasa Hirata
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  Group-level and functional-region analysis of electric-field shape during cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation with different electrode montages.

Authors:  Jose Gomez-Tames; Akihiro Asai; Marko Mikkonen; Ilkka Laakso; Satoshi Tanaka; Shintaro Uehara; Yohei Otaka; Akimasa Hirata
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Asif Rahman; Abhishek Datta
Journal:  Clin EEG Neurosci       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.843

Review 5.  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

6.  Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: A modeling study.

Authors:  Gábor Csifcsák; Nya Mehnwolo Boayue; Oula Puonti; Axel Thielscher; Matthias Mittner
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 4.839

7.  Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex from Intrinsic Functional Connectivity MRI.

Authors:  Alexander Schaefer; Ru Kong; Evan M Gordon; Timothy O Laumann; Xi-Nian Zuo; Avram J Holmes; Simon B Eickhoff; B T Thomas Yeo
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Direct current stimulation of endothelial monolayers induces a transient and reversible increase in transport due to the electroosmotic effect.

Authors:  Limary M Cancel; Katherin Arias; Marom Bikson; John M Tarbell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Methodology for tDCS integration with fMRI.

Authors:  Zeinab Esmaeilpour; A Duke Shereen; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Abhishek Datta; Adam J Woods; Maria Ironside; Jacinta O'Shea; Ulrich Kirk; Marom Bikson; Hamed Ekhtiari
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  TMS Motor Thresholds Correlate With TDCS Electric Field Strengths in Hand Motor Area.

Authors:  Marko Mikkonen; Ilkka Laakso; Motofumi Sumiya; Soichiro Koyama; Akimasa Hirata; Satoshi Tanaka
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 4.677

View more
  3 in total

1.  Nonequivalent After-Effects of Alternating Current Stimulation on Motor Cortex Oscillation and Inhibition: Simulation and Experimental Study.

Authors:  Makoto Suzuki; Satoshi Tanaka; Jose Gomez-Tames; Takuhiro Okabe; Kilchoon Cho; Naoki Iso; Akimasa Hirata
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-01-31

2.  Performance after training in a complex cognitive task is enhanced by high-definition transcranial random noise stimulation.

Authors:  Quentin Chenot; Caroline Hamery; Evelyne Lepron; Pierre Besson; Xavier De Boissezon; Stéphane Perrey; Sébastien Scannella
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study.

Authors:  Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel; Shun Takahashi; Temmuz Karali; Eva Mezger; Lucia Bulubas; Irina Papazova; Esther Dechantsreiter; Sophia Stoecklein; Boris Papazov; Axel Thielscher; Frank Padberg; Daniel Keeser
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2022-04-16       Impact factor: 4.891

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.