Gyri –precise head model of transcranial DC stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad

By Abhishek Datta, Varun Bansal, J. Diaz, J. Patel, Davide Reato, Marom Bikson. Brain Stimulation, 2009

1,299 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The spatial resolution of conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is considered to be relatively diffuse owing to skull dispersion. However, here we show that electric fields may be clustered at distinct gyri/sulci sites due to details in tissue architecture/conductivity notably cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We calculated the cortical electric field/current density magnitude induced during tDCS using a high spatial resolution (1 mm3) MRI-derived finite element human head model; cortical gyri/sulci were resolved. The spatial focality of conventional rectangular-pad (7 × 5 cm2) and the ring (4 × 1) electrode configurations were compared. The rectangular-pad configuration resulted in diffuse (un-focal) modulation, with discrete clusters of electric field magnitude maxima. Peak induced electric field magnitude was not observed directly underneath the pads, but at an intermediate lobe. The 4 × 1 ring resulted in enhanced spatial focality, with peak induced electric field magnitude at the sulcus and adjacent gyri directly underneath the active electrode. Cortical structures may be focally targeted using ring configurations. Anatomically accurate high resolution MRI-based forward-models may guide the ‘rational’ clinical design and optimization of tDCS.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d44531e0b1f702ce2bc2a7fa827bacfe33f8b5fd

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

In Neurology

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

Citations in the corpus

Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study. (2013, positive): “HD tDCS was recently developed on the basis of computational modeling studies to enhance the focality of tDCS [8,12].”
Partially non‐linear stimulation intensity‐dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans (2013, positive): “Furthermore, due to modelling and imaging studies the current injected by tDCS with conventional electrode montages affects several regions of the brain (Datta et al. 2009), also beyond the target area, and changes functional connectivity between them (Polania et al. 2011a,b).”
Clinical Research with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): Challenges and Future Directions (2011, positive): “Moreover, experimental and modeling studies suggest no significant temperature increases for typical tDCS protocols.(7,71,73) TDCS has been tested in thousands of subjects worldwide with no evidence of toxic effects to date.”
Physiological and modeling evidence for focal transcranial electrical brain stimulation in humans: A basis for high-definition tDCS (2013, neutral): “However, modeling (Datta et al., 2009; Sadleir et al., 2010) and imaging (Baudewig et al., 2001; Lang et al., 2005) studies of tDCS suggest that conventional tDCS electrode montages using large, damp sponge electrodes result in very diffuse brain current flow, with areas of clustering (hot spots),…”
A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools (2015, methodology): “Models can also be used to leverage HighDefinition tDCS (Datta et al., 2009), or other multi-electrode approaches for targeting, or to consider inter-individual difference across the normal adult population (Datta et al.”
Battery powered thought: Enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial direct current stimulation (2014, neutral): “The soft tissue and bone between the stimulating electrode and cerebral cortex result in a substantial difficulty in targeting specific brain areas, and the current distribution in the brain changes with the arrangement of electrodes (Datta et al., 2009;Nitsche et al., 2008).”
Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation—ROAST—a fully automated open-source pipeline (2017, neutral): “The reason for using this individual is that it has been manually segmented from scratch (Datta et al., 2009) so there is no bias introduced by initializing the manual segmentation with the results from an automated segmentation software. c r The ﬁrst segmentation candidate was obtained by ROAST…”
The electric field in the cortex during transcranial current stimulation (2013, methodology): “In recent studies MR images were used to generate more realistic head models (Datta et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Sadleir et al., 2010; Suh et al., 2012; Wagner et al., 2007).”
Safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016 (2016, background): “However, in contrast to TMS, electric fields produced by tDCS in the brain are static not pulsed, and are two orders of magnitude below those employed in rTMS [12], [147].”
Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017, methodology): “Changes in individual EF distribution can also be calculated in the presence of skull defects or skull plates (Datta et al. , 2010), in stroke patients with large defects filled by CSF (Datta et al. , 2011) and in children with thinner skulls (Gillick et al. , 2014, Kessler et al. , 2013, Parazzini ”
Modulating prefrontal cortex activity to alleviate stress-induced working memory deficits: A transcranial direct current (tDCS) study (2024, unknown): “In contrast, focal stimulation targets a specific region more precisely (Datta et al., 2009; Mikkonen et al., 2020).”