The electric field in the cortex during transcranial current stimulation

By Pedro Cavaleiro Miranda, Abeye Mekonnen, Ricardo Salvador, Giulio Ruffini. NeuroImage, 2013

331 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Neurology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/07cbf320c8e0d831bddb42dd1c04950a7e7a65f5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Agnes Flöel
2. Michael A. Nitsche
3. Alvaro Pascual-Leone
4. Leonardo G. Cohen
5. John C. Rothwell
6. Felipe Fregni
7. Friedhelm Christoph Hummel
8. Walter Paulus

In Neurology

1. Michael A. Nitsche
2. Alvaro Pascual-Leone
3. Agnes Flöel
4. Leonardo G. Cohen
5. Felipe Fregni
6. Walter Paulus
7. John C. Rothwell
8. Friedhelm Christoph Hummel

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

1. Leonardo G. Cohen
2. Friedhelm Christoph Hummel
3. Mark Hallett
4. Hartwig Roman Siebner
5. John C. Rothwell
6. Alvaro Pascual-Leone
7. Giulio Ruffini
8. Walter Paulus

Citations in the corpus

• Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017, methodology): “…predicted for the maximum EF strength in the cortex of realistic head models often fall between 0.2 and 0.5 V/m using 1 mA (e.g., (Datta et al., 2009a, Metwally et al. , 2015, Miranda et al., 2013, Parazzini et al. , 2016, Rampersad et al. , 2014, Saturnino et al., 2015, Shahid et al. , 2013)).”
• Noninvasive deep brain stimulation via temporally interfering electric fields (2017, neutral): “01 kHz and 2 kHz, resulting in a Df envelope frequency of 10 Hz, was able to recruit neurons to fire at 10 Hz (Figure 1D), as efficaciously as direct 10 Hz stimulation (Figure 1E) that would be expected to broadly affect neural activity (Miranda et al., 2013).”
• A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools (2015, methodology): “Accurate modeling requires MRI-derived anatomy preserving gyri-level precision (Datta et al., 2009; Parazzini et al., 2011, 2012; Bikson and Datta, 2012; Miranda et al., 2013; Rampersad et al., 2014; Opitz et al., 2015).”
• Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields (2013, neutral): “Realistic head model and electric field modeling The electric field calculations were performed using the realistic head model described in Miranda et al. (2013).”
• Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes (2013, background): “This has led to the idea of differentiating between the currents that flow radial with respect to the cortical surface and those that flow tangential (Miranda et al., 2012).”
• Diaschisis: past, present, future. (2014, background): “Furthermore, TMS pulses may affect excitability of adjacent areas (Miranda et al., 2013).”
• How structural and functional MRI can inform dual-site tACS parameters: A case study in a clinical population and its pragmatic implications. (2022, methodology): “Therefore, with respect to the non-homologous stimulation sites in FPS, we considered anatomical features of each target site and set the current intensity accordingly that can be scaled based on the assumption of a quasi-static regime [81].”