Daria Antonenko1, Ulrike Grittner2, Oula Puonti3, Agnes Flöel4, Axel Thielscher5. 1. Department of Neurology, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. Electronic address: daria.antonenko@med.uni-greifswald.de. 2. Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: ulrike.grittner@charite.de. 3. Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Section for Magnetic Resonance, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Electronic address: oupu@dtu.dk. 4. Department of Neurology, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany; German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Standort Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. Electronic address: agnes.floeel@med.uni-greifswald.de. 5. Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Section for Magnetic Resonance, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Electronic address: axelt@drcmr.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head and brain anatomy have been related to e-field strength induced by transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Individualization based on anatomic factors require high-quality structural magnetic resonance images, which are not always available. Head circumference (HC) can serve as an alternative means, but its linkage to electric field strength has not yet been established. METHODS: We simulated electric fields induced by tES based on individual T1w- and T2w-images of 47 healthy adults, for four conventional ("standard") and four corresponding focal ("4x1") electrode montages. Associations of electric field strength with individual HC were calculated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Larger HC was associated with lower electric field strength across montages. We provide mathematical equations to estimate individual electric field strength based on the HC. CONCLUSION: HC can be used as an alternative to estimate interindividual differences of the tES-induced electric field strength and to prospectively individualize stimulation dose, e.g., in the clinical context.
BACKGROUND: Head and brain anatomy have been related to e-field strength induced by transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Individualization based on anatomic factors require high-quality structural magnetic resonance images, which are not always available. Head circumference (HC) can serve as an alternative means, but its linkage to electric field strength has not yet been established. METHODS: We simulated electric fields induced by tES based on individual T1w- and T2w-images of 47 healthy adults, for four conventional ("standard") and four corresponding focal ("4x1") electrode montages. Associations of electric field strength with individual HC were calculated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Larger HC was associated with lower electric field strength across montages. We provide mathematical equations to estimate individual electric field strength based on the HC. CONCLUSION: HC can be used as an alternative to estimate interindividual differences of the tES-induced electric field strength and to prospectively individualize stimulation dose, e.g., in the clinical context.
Authors: Gesa Hartwigsen; Til Ole Bergmann; Damian Marc Herz; Steffen Angstmann; Anke Karabanov; Estelle Raffin; Axel Thielscher; Hartwig Roman Siebner Journal: Prog Brain Res Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.453
Authors: Rahul S Desikan; Florent Ségonne; Bruce Fischl; Brian T Quinn; Bradford C Dickerson; Deborah Blacker; Randy L Buckner; Anders M Dale; R Paul Maguire; Bradley T Hyman; Marilyn S Albert; Ronald J Killiany Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yu Huang; Anli A Liu; Belen Lafon; Daniel Friedman; Michael Dayan; Xiuyuan Wang; Marom Bikson; Werner K Doyle; Orrin Devinsky; Lucas C Parra Journal: Elife Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Sena Minjoli; Guilherme B Saturnino; Jakob Udby Blicher; Charlotte J Stagg; Hartwig R Siebner; André Antunes; Axel Thielscher Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Kevin A Caulfield; Bashar W Badran; William H DeVries; Philipp M Summers; Emma Kofmehl; Xingbao Li; Jeffrey J Borckardt; Marom Bikson; Mark S George Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Andrés Molero-Chamizo; Michael A Nitsche; Carolina Gutiérrez Lérida; Ángeles Salas Sánchez; Raquel Martín Riquel; Rafael Tomás Andújar Barroso; José Ramón Alameda Bailén; Jesús Carlos García Palomeque; Guadalupe Nathzidy Rivera-Urbina Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2021-11-25