Use of electric field orientation as an index for estimating the contribution of model complexity in transcranial direct current stimulation forward head model development

Syed Salman Shahid; Bo Song; Humaira Salman; Marilia Menezes de Oliveira; Peng Wen

Use of electric field orientation as an index for estimating the contribution of model complexity in transcranial direct current stimulation forward head model development

View Fulltext

Author(s): Syed Salman Shahid ¹ ; Bo Song ² ; Humaira Salman ¹ ; Marilia Menezes de Oliveira ² ; Peng Wen ²
- Affiliations: 1: National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan ;
  2: University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Source: Volume 9, Issue 5, August 2015, p. 596 – 605
DOI: 10.1049/iet-smt.2014.0220 , Print ISSN 1751-8822, Online ISSN 1751-8830

Received 20/09/2013, Accepted 17/11/2014, Published 18/03/2015

The study evaluates the role of human skull composition and brain anisotropy in the context of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) based predictive modeling. Four head models were developed and each proposed attribute (cancellous bone and brain anisotropy) was compared with the isotropic model. By employing a single high-definition montage, the efficacy of each attribute in shaping induced electric field was analyzed by its magnitude and orientation information. Relative error (RE) was used to estimate the variation in field magnitude. It was observed that for a given high-definition montage, the brain anisotropy contributed to 5% change (RE) in the strength of the gray matter (GM) electric field and 10% for the white matter (WM). Inclusion of diploe in the model resulted in 45% variation in the magnitude of the brain electric field. On average, brain anisotropy contributed to field deviations of up to 20 degrees in major WM fiber tracts. Skull heterogeneity caused field deviations of up to 35 degrees in diploe, 15 degrees in subcutaneous fat and marginal variations in brain regions. These simulation results demonstrated the importance of considering refinement in forward models of tDCS, especially; the role of diploe should be considered for more accurate field assessments.

References

1. 1)
  - 86. Turi, Z., Paulus, W., Antal, A.: ‘Functional neuroimaging and transcranial electrical stimulation’, Clin. EEG Neurosci., 2012, 43, pp. 200–208 (doi: 10.1177/1550059412444978).
2. 2)
  - 5. Nitsche, M.A., Fricke, K., Henschke, U., et al: ‘Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans’, J. Physiol., 2004, 553, pp. 293–301 (doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916).
3. 3)
  - M. Nitsche , W. Paulus . Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol.
4. 4)
  - 64. Oostendorp, T.F., Hengeveld, Y.A., Wolters, C.H., Stinstra, J., van Elswijk, G., Stegeman, D.F.: ‘Modeling transcranial DC stimulation’. 30th Annual Int. Conf. of the IEEE, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS 2008.2008, pp. 4226–4229.
5. 5)
  - 40. Chris, C., Vasken, K., Kwan, K.s., Pike, G.B.: ‘BrainWeb: online interface to a 3D MRI simulated brain database’.
6. 6)
  - 44. Shahid, S., Wen, P., Ahfock, T.: ‘Assessment of electric field distribution in anisotropic cortical and subcortical regions under the influence of tDCS’, Bioelectromagnetics, 2013, 35, pp. 41–57 (doi: 10.1002/bem.21814).
7. 7)
  - 74. Datta, A., Baker, J.M., Bikson, M., Fridriksson, J.: ‘Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient’, Brain Stimulation, 2011, 4, pp. 169–174 (doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001).
8. 8)
  - 24. Datta, A., Zhou, X., Su, Y.Z., Parra, L.C., Bikson, M.: ‘Validation of finite element model of transcranial electrical stimulation using scalp potentials: implications for clinical dose’, J. Neural Eng., 2013, 10, p. 036018 (doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/10/3/036018).
9. 9)
  - 34. Montes-Restrepo, V., van Mierlo, P., Strobbe, G., Staelens, S., Vandenberghe, S., Hallez, H.: ‘Influence of skull modeling approaches on EEG source localization’, Brain Topogr., 2014, 27, pp. 95–111 (doi: 10.1007/s10548-013-0313-y).
10. 10)
  - 26. Shahid, S., Wen, P., Ahfock, T.: ‘Numerical investigation of white matter anisotropic conductivity in defining current distribution under tDCS’, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 2013, 109, pp. 48–64 (doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.09.001).
11. 11)
  - 46. Kim, S., Kim, T., Zhou, Y., Singh, M.: ‘Influence of conductivity tensors in the finite element model of the head on the forward solution of EEG’, 2001.
12. 12)
  - 38. Lee, W., Seo, H., Kim, S., Cho, M., Lee, S., Kim, T.S.: ‘Influence of white matter anisotropy on the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: a finite element study’. Presented at the 13th Int. Conf. on Biomedical Engineering, 2009.
13. 13)
  - 63. Dannhauer, M., Brooks, D., Tucker, D., MacLeod, R.: ‘A pipeline for the simulation of transcranial direct current stimulation for realistic human head models using SCIRun/BioMesh3D’. Conf. Proc. Annual Int. Conf. of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Conference, 2012.
14. 14)
  - S. Rush , D.A. Driscoll . Current distribution in the brain from surface electrodes. Anesth. Analg.
15. 15)
  - T. Oostendorp , J. Delbeke , D. Stegeman . The conductivity of the human skull: results of in vivo and in vitro measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 1487 - 1492
16. 16)
  - 15. Park, J.H., Hong, S.B., Kim, D.W., Suh, M., Im, C.H.: ‘A novel array-type transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) system for accurate focusing on targeted brain areas’, IEEE Trans. Magn., , 2011, 47, pp. 882–885 (doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2010.2072987).
17. 17)
  - 80. Rush, S., Driscoll, D.: ‘EEG electrode sensitivity-an application of reciprocity’, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1969, pp. 15–22 (doi: 10.1109/TBME.1969.4502598).
18. 18)
  - 49. Hallez, H., Staelens, S., Lemahieu, I.: ‘Dipole estimation errors due to not incorporating anisotropic conductivities in realistic head models for EEG source analysis’, Phys. Med. Biol., 2009, 54, p. 6079 (doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/20/004).
19. 19)
  - 87. Antal, A., Polania, R., Schmidt-Samoa, C., Dechent, P., Paulus, W.: ‘Transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex during fMRI’, Neuroimage, 2011, 55, pp. 590–596 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.085).
20. 20)
  - 81. Hyun Sang, S., Won Hee, L., Young Sun, C., Ji-Hwan, K., Tae-Seong, K.: ‘Reduced spatial focality of electrical field in tDCS with ring electrodes due to tissue anisotropy’. Annual Int. Conf. of the IEEEPresented at the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2010, pp. 2053–2056.
21. 21)
  - 84. Polania, R., Paulus, W., Nitsche, M.A.: ‘Modulating cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation’, Hum. Brain Mapp., 2012, 33, pp. 2499–2508 (doi: 10.1002/hbm.21380).
22. 22)
  - A. Datta , V. Bansal , J. Diaz , J. Patel , D. Reato , M. Bikson . Gyri – precise head model of transcranial DC stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimulation
23. 23)
  - 45. Tuch, D.S., Wedeen, V.J., Dale, A.M., George, J.S., Belliveau, J.W.: ‘Conductivity Mapping of Biological Tissue Using Diffusion MRI’, Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 1999, 888, pp. 314–316 (doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb07965.x).
24. 24)
  - M. Akhtari , H. Bryant , A. Manelak . Conductivities of three-layer live human skull. Brain Topogr. , 151 - 167
25. 25)
  - C. Wolters , A. Anwander , X. Tricoche , D. Weinstein , M. Koch , R. MacLeod . Influence of tissue conductivity anisotropy on EEG/MEG field and return current computation in a realistic head model: a simulation and visualization study using high-resolution finite element modeling. Neuroimage , 813 - 826
26. 26)
  - 22. Guleyupoglu, B., Schestatsky, P., Edwards, D., Fregni, F., Bikson, M.: ‘Classification of methods in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) and evolving strategy from historical approaches to contemporary innovations’, J. Neurosci. Methods, 2013, 219, pp. 297–311 (doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.07.016).
27. 27)
  - 10. Peterchev, A.V., Wagner, T.A., Miranda, P.C., et al: ‘Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices’, Brain Stimulation, 2011, 5, pp. 435–453 (doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2011.10.001).
28. 28)
  - 100. Opitz, A., Legon, W., Rowlands, A., Bickel, W.K., Paulus, W., Tyler, W.J.: ‘Physiological observations validate finite element models for estimating subject-specific electric field distributions induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex’, Neuroimage, 2013, 81, pp. 253–264 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.067).
29. 29)
  - 70. Opitz, A., Windhoff, M., Heidemann, R.M., Turner, R., Thielscher, A.: ‘How the brain tissue shapes the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation’, Neuroimage, 2011, 58, pp. 849–859 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.069).
30. 30)
  - C. Gabriel . The dielectric properties of biological tissues I, II, III. Phys. Med. Biol. , 2231 - 2293
31. 31)
  - 8. Ruohonen, J., Karhu, J.: ‘tDCS possibly stimulates glial cells’, Clin. Neurophysiol., 2012, 123, pp. 2006–2009 (doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.02.082).
32. 32)
  - 7. Cogiamanian, F., Vergari, M., Pulecchi, F., Marceglia, S., Priori, A.: ‘Effect of spinal transcutaneous direct current stimulation on somatosensory evoked potentials in humans’, Clin. Neurophysiol.: Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2008, 119, pp. 2636–2640 (doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.07.249).
33. 33)
  - 83. Francis, J.T., Gluckman, B.J., Schiff, S.J.: ‘Sensitivity of neurons to weak electric fields’, J. Neurosci., 2003, 23, pp. 7255–7261.
34. 34)
  - 72. Purpura, D.P., McMurtry, J.G.: ‘Intracellular activities and evoked potential changes during polarization of motor cortex’, J. Neurophysiol., 1965, 28, pp. 166–185.
35. 35)
  - 90. Nilsson, J., Panizza, M., Roth, B., et al: ‘Determining the site of stimulation during magnetic stimulation of a peripheral nerve’, EEG Clin. Neurophysiol./Evoked Potentials Section, 1992, 85, pp. 253–264 (doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(92)90114-Q).
36. 36)
  - M. Parazzini , S. Fiocchi , E. Rossi , A. Paglialonga , P. Ravazzani . Transcranial direct current stimulation: estimation of the electric field and of the current density in an anatomical human head model. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 1773 - 1780
37. 37)
  - 16. Jung, Y.-J., Kim, J.-H., Kim, D., Im, C.-H.: ‘An image-guided transcranial direct current stimulation system: a pilot phantom study’, Physiol. Meas., 2013, 34, p. 937 (doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/34/8/937).
38. 38)
  - 62. Logothetis, N.K., Kayser, C., Oeltermann, A.: ‘In vivo measurement of cortical impedance spectrum in monkeys: implications for signal propagation’, Neuron, 2007, 55, pp. 809–823 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.027).
39. 39)
  - 50. Miranda, P.C., Pajevic, S., Pierpoali, C., Hallett, M., Basser, P.: ‘The distribution of currents induced in the brain by magnetic stimulation: A finite element analysis incorporating DT-MRI-derived conductivity data’. Presented at the Proc. Int. Soc. Mag. Reson, 2001.
40. 40)
  - 95. Wedeen, V.J., Wang, R.P., Schmahmann, J.D., et al: ‘Diffusion spectrum magnetic resonance imaging (DSI) tractography of crossing fibers’, Neuroimage, 2008, 41, pp. 1267–1277 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.036).
41. 41)
  - 14. Ruffini, G., Fox, M.D., Ripolles, O., Miranda, P.C., Pascual-Leone, A.: ‘Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields’, Neuroimage, 2014, 89, pp. 216–225 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.002).
42. 42)
  - C. Im , H. Jung , J. Choi , S. Lee , K. Jung . Determination of optimal electrode positions for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Phys. Med. Biol.
43. 43)
  - 2. Nitsche, M.A., Paulus, W.: ‘Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans’, Neurology, 2001, 57, pp. 1899–1901 (doi: 10.1212/WNL.57.10.1899).
44. 44)
  - 3. Nitsche, M.A., Liebetanz, D., Antal, A., Lang, N., Tergau, F., Paulus, W.: ‘Modulation of cortical excitability by weak direct current stimulation–technical, safety and functional aspects’, Suppl. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2003, 56, pp. 255–276 (doi: 10.1016/S1567-424X(09)70230-2).
45. 45)
  - S. Gabriel , W. Lau R , C. Gabriel . The dielectric properties of biological tissues: II. Measurement in the frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz. Phys. Med. Biol. , 2251 - 2269
46. 46)
  - 65. Shahid, S., Peng, W., Ahfock, T.: ‘Effects of model complexity and tissue anisotropic conductivity on cortical modluation during tDCS’, IET Sci. Meas. Technol., in press, 2012, 6, pp. 464–473 (doi: 10.1049/iet-smt.2012.0014).
47. 47)
  - 51. Lazar, M., Alexander, A.L.: ‘An error analysis of white matter tractography methods: synthetic diffusion tensor field simulations’, Neuroimage, 2003, 20, pp. 1140–1153 (doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00277-5).
48. 48)
  - 43. Woolsey, T.A., Hanaway, J., Gado, M.H.: ‘The brain atlas: a visual guide to the human central nervous system’ (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008).
49. 49)
  - 47. Kun, W., Shanan, Z., Mueller, B.A., Lim, K.O., Zhongming, L., Bin, H.: ‘A new method to derive white matter conductivity from diffusion tensor MRI’, Biomedical IEEE Trans. Magn. Eng.,, 2008, 55, pp. 2481–2486 (doi: 10.1109/TBME.2008.923159).
50. 50)
  - 18. Im, C.H., Park, J.H., Shim, M., Chang, W.H., Kim, Y.H.: ‘Evaluation of local electric fields generated by transcranial direct current stimulation with an extracephalic reference electrode based on realistic 3D body modeling’, Phys. Med. Biol., 2012, 57, p. 2137 (doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/8/2137).
51. 51)
  - 98. Zheng, X., Alsop, D.C., Schlaug, G.: ‘Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on human regional cerebral blood flow’, Neuroimage, 2011, 58, pp. 26–33 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.018).
52. 52)
  - 92. Thielscher, A., Opitz, A., Windhoff, M.: ‘Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation’, Neuroimage, 2011, 54, pp. 234–243 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.061).
53. 53)
  - 20. Kuo, H.-I., Bikson, M., Datta, A., et al: ‘Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: a neurophysiological study’, Brain Stimulation, 2012, 6, pp. 644–648 (doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.09.010).
54. 54)
  - 31. Sadleir, R., Argibay, A.: ‘Modeling skull electrical properties’, Ann. Biomed. Eng., 2007, 35, pp. 1699–1712 (doi: 10.1007/s10439-007-9343-5).
55. 55)
  - 41. Aubert-Broche, B., Evans, A., Collins, L.: ‘A new improved version of the realistic digital brain phantom’, Neuroimage, 2006, 32, pp. 138–145 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.052).
56. 56)
  - 99. Opitz, A., Zafar, N., Bockermann, V., Rohde, V., Paulus, W.: ‘Validating computationally predicted TMS stimulation areas using direct electrical stimulation in patients with brain tumors near precentral regions’, NeuroImage: Clinical, 2014, 4, pp. 500–507 (doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.03.004).
57. 57)
  - S. Goncalve , J. De Munck , J. Verbunt , R. Heethaar , F. da Silva . In vivo measurement of the brain and skull resistivities using an EIT-based method and the combined analysis of SEF/SEP data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 1124 - 1127
58. 58)
  - J. Meijs , O. Weier , M. Peters , A. Van Oosterom . On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method (EEG application). IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 1038 - 1049
59. 59)
  - 71. Shahid, S.S., Bikson, M., Salman, H., Wen, P., Ahfock, T.: ‘The value and cost of complexity in predictive modelling: role of tissue anisotropic conductivity and fibre tracts in neuromodulation’, J. Neural. Eng., 2014, 11, p. 036002 (doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/036002).
60. 60)
  - 89. De Lucia, M., Parker, G., Embleton, K., Newton, J., Walsh, V.: ‘Diffusion tensor MRI-based estimation of the influence of brain tissue anisotropy on the effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation’, Neuroimage, 2007, 36, pp. 1159–1170 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.062).
61. 61)
  - J. De Munck . The potential distribution in a layered anisotropic spheroidal volume conductor. J. Appl. Phys. , 464 - 470
62. 62)
  - 42. Smith, S.M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M.W., et al: ‘Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL’, NeuroImage, 2004, 23, pp. S208–S219 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051).
63. 63)
  - 35. Vorwerk, J., Cho, J.-H., Rampp, S., Hamer, H., Knösche, T.R., Wolters, C.H.: ‘A guideline for head volume conductor modeling in EEG and MEG’, NeuroImage, 2014, 100, pp. 590–607 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.040).
64. 64)
  - 19. Borckardt, J.J., Bikson, M., Frohman, H., et al: ‘A pilot study of the tolerability and effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on pain perception’, J Pain, vol. 13, pp. 112–20, Feb 2012..
65. 65)
  - 69. Nummenmaa, A., McNab, J.A., Savadjiev, P., et al: ‘Targeting of white matter tracts with transcranial magnetic stimulation’, Brain Stimul., 2014, 7, pp. 80–84 (doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2013.10.001).
66. 66)
  - 33. Lanfer, B., Scherg, M., Dannhauer, M., Knosche, T.R., Burger, M., Wolters, C.H.: ‘Influences of skull segmentation inaccuracies on EEG source analysis’, Neuroimage, 2012, 62, pp. 418–431 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.006).
67. 67)
  - 32. Dannhauer, M., Lanfer, B., Wolters, C.H., Knosche, T.R.: ‘Modeling of the human skull in EEG source analysis’, Hum. Brain Mapp., 2011, 32, pp. 1383–1399 (doi: 10.1002/hbm.21114).
68. 68)
  - 67. Güllmar, D., Haueisen, J., Reichenbach, J.: ‘Influence of anisotropic electrical conductivity in white matter tissue on the EEG/MEG forward and inverse solution. A high-resolution whole head simulation study’, Neuroimage, 2010, 51, pp. 145–163 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.014).
69. 69)
  - 30. Munck, J., Peters, M.: ‘A fast method to compute the potential in the multisphere model’, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 1993, 40, pp. 1166–1174 (doi: 10.1109/10.245635).
70. 70)
  - P. Nicholson . Specific impedance of cerebral white matter. Exp. Neurol. , 386 - 401
71. 71)
  - R. Holdefer , R. Sadleir , M. Russell . Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. , 1388 - 1397
72. 72)
  - 4. Liebetanz, D., Nitsche, M.A., Tergau, F., Paulus, W.: ‘Pharmacological approach to the mechanisms of transcranial DC-stimulation-induced after-effects of human motor cortex excitability’, Brain, 2002, 125, pp. 2238–2247 (doi: 10.1093/brain/awf238).
73. 73)
  - 21. Minhas, P., Bansal, V., Patel, J., et al: ‘Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS’, J. Neurosci. Methods, 2010, 190, pp. 188–197 (doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.05.007).
74. 74)
  - 94. Tuch, D.S., Reese, T.G., Wiegell, M.R., Makris, N., Belliveau, J.W., Wedeen, V.J.: ‘High angular resolution diffusion imaging reveals intravoxel white matter fiber heterogeneity’, Magn Reson Med, 2002, 48, pp. 577–582 (doi: 10.1002/mrm.10268).
75. 75)
  - 36. Wagner, S., Rampersad, S.M., Aydin, U., et al: ‘Investigation of tDCS volume conduction effects in a highly realistic head model’, J. Neural. Eng., 2014, vol. 11, p. 016002, Feb 2014.
76. 76)
  - 75. Datta, A., Truong, D., Minhas, P., Parra, L.C., Bikson, M.: ‘Inter-individual variation during transcranial direct current stimulation and normalization of dose using MRI-derived computational models’, Frontiers Psychiatry, 2012, 3 (doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00091).
77. 77)
  - 91. Salvador, R., Silva, S., Basser, P., Miranda, P.: ‘Determining which mechanisms lead to activation in the motor cortex: A modeling study of transcranial magnetic stimulation using realistic stimulus waveforms and sulcal geometry’, Clin. Neurophysiol., 2011, 122, pp. 748–758 (doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.09.022).
78. 78)
  - 6. Ardolino, G., Bossi, B., Barbieri, S., Priori, A.: ‘Non-synaptic mechanisms underlie the after-effects of cathodal transcutaneous direct current stimulation of the human brain’, J. Physiol., 2005, 568, pp. 653–663 (doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.088310).
79. 79)
  - 85. Saiote, C., Turi, Z., Paulus, W., Antal, A.: ‘Combining functional magnetic resonance imaging with transcranial electrical stimulation’, Front Hum. Neurosci., 2013, 7, p. 435 (doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00435).
80. 80)
  - 73. DaSilva, A.F., Mendonca, M.E., Zaghi, S., et al: ‘tDCS-induced analgesia and electrical fields in pain-related neural networks in chronic migraine’, Headache: J. Head Face Pain, 2012, 52, pp. 1283–1295 (doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02141.x).
81. 81)
  - 25. Rullmann, M., Anwander, A., Dannhauer, M., Warfield, S.K., Duffy, F.H., Wolters, C.H.: ‘EEG source analysis of epileptiform activity using a 1 mm anisotropic hexahedra finite element head model’, Neuroimage, 2009, 44, pp. 399–410 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.009).
82. 82)
  - 88. Bossetti, C.A., Birdno, M.J., Grill, W.M.: ‘Analysis of the quasi-static approximation for calculating potentials generated by neural stimulation’, J. Neural. Eng., 2008, 5, pp. 44–53 (doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/5/1/005).
83. 83)
  - 76. Parazzini, M., Fiocchi, S., Ravazzani, P.: ‘Electric field and current density distribution in an anatomical head model during transcranial direct current stimulation for tinnitus treatment’, Bioelectromagnetics, 2012, 33, pp. 476–487 (doi: 10.1002/bem.21708).
84. 84)
  - M. Windhoff , A. Opitz , A. Thielscher . Electric field calculations in brain stimulation based on finite elements: an optimized processing pipeline for the generation and usage of accurate individual head models. Human Brain Mapping
85. 85)
  - 61. Malmivuo, J., Plonsey, R.: ‘Bioelectromagnetism: principles and applications of bioelectric and biomagnetic fields’ (Oxford University Press, USA, 1995).
86. 86)
  - 79. Nitsche, M.A., Nitsche, M.S., Klein, C.C., Tergau, F., Rothwell, J.C., Paulus, W.: ‘Level of action of cathodal DC polarisation induced inhibition of the human motor cortex’, Clin. Neurophysiol., 2003, 114, pp. 600–604 (doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00412-1).
87. 87)
  - 97. Yan, D., Xu, W., Li, J.: ‘Anisotropic WM conductivity reconstruction based on diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging: a simulation study’, J. Biomed. Sci. Eng., 2010, 3, pp. 776–784 (doi: 10.4236/jbise.2010.38103).
88. 88)
  - 52. Tensaouti, F., Lotterie, J.A., Berry, I.: ‘Fiber tracking on the phantom dataset by using Sisyphe software’. Presented at the MICCAI workshop on Diffusion Modelling and the Fiber Cup (DMFC'09), London, United Kingdom, 2009.
89. 89)
  - 48. Hallez, H., Vanrumste, B., Van Hese, P., Delputte, S., Lemahieu, I.: ‘Dipole estimation errors due to differences in modeling anisotropic conductivities in realistic head models for EEG source analysis’, Phys. Med. Biol., 2008, 53, pp. 1877–1894 (doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/7/005).
90. 90)
  - 93. Wang, L., Zhong, X., Zhang, L., Tiwari, D., Mao, H.: ‘Ultra-short TE (UTE) imaging of skull and a quantitative comparison of skull images obtained from MRI and CT’.
91. 91)
  - S. Baumann , D. Wozny , S. Kelly , F. Meno . The electrical conductivity of human cerebrospinal fluid at body temperature. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. , 220 - 223
92. 92)
  - 12. Edwards, D., Cortes, M., Datta, A., Minhas, P., Wassermann, E.M., Bikson, M.: ‘Physiological and modeling evidence for focal transcranial electrical brain stimulation in humans: a basis for high-definition tDCS’, Neuroimage, 2013, 74, pp. 266–275 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.042).
93. 93)
  - 9. Butson, C.R.: ‘Computational models of neuromodulation’, Int. Rev. Neurobiol., 2012, 107, pp. 5–22 (doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-404706-8.00002-4).
94. 94)
  - 37. Rampersad, S., Stegeman, D., Oostendorp, T.: ‘Single-layer skull approximations perform well in transcranial direct current stimulation modeling’, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 2012, PP, pp. 1–1.
95. 95)
  - 96. Bangera, N., Schomer, D., Dehghani, N., et al: ‘Experimental validation of the influence of white matter anisotropy on the intracranial EEG forward solution’, J. Comput. Neurosci., 2009, 29, pp. 371–387 (doi: 10.1007/s10827-009-0205-z).
96. 96)
  - 13. Dmochowski, J.P., Datta, A., Bikson, M., Su, Y., Parra, L.C.: ‘Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target’, J. Neural Eng., 2011, 8, p. 046011 (doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046011).
97. 97)
  - 66. Eichelbaum, S., Dannhauer, M., Hlawitschka, M., Brooks, D., Knosche, T.R., Scheuermann, G.: ‘Visualizing simulated electrical fields from electroencephalography and transcranial electric brain stimulation: A comparative evaluation’, Neuroimage, 2014, 101, pp. 513–530 (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.085).

Login

Not registered yet?

Share

Tools

Login to add to favourites

Key

Use of electric field orientation as an index for estimating the contribution of model complexity in transcranial direct current stimulation forward head model development

References

Related content