ArticleJournal of biomedical research2013
Individual differences in transcranial electrical stimulation current density.
Article in Journal of biomedical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the effects of brain stimulation on the neural substrates of inhibition in patients with OCD: A simultaneous tDCS - fMRI study.Translational psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology predict effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation.Brain stimulationTrial
- Inter-Individual Variability in tDCS Effects: A Narrative Review on the Contribution of Stable, Variable, and Contextual Factors.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation & Space Exploration: Opportunities and Challenges.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2020Review
- Intracranial alternating current stimulation facilitates neurogenesis in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2020Article
- Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) mechanisms and its effects on cortical excitability and connectivity.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2018Review
- Sex and Electrode Configuration in Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2017Article
- Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Premotor Cortex Improves Motor Function in Severe Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Rehabilitation research and practice · 2017Article
- The electric field distribution in the brain during TTFields therapy and its dependence on tissue dielectric properties and anatomy: a computational study.Physics in medicine and biology · 2015Article
- The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2015Review
- Stimulating somatosensory psychophysics: a double-blind, sham-controlled study of the neurobiological mechanisms of tDCS.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2015Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in behavioral and food addiction: a systematic review of efficacy, technical, and methodological issues.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2015Review
- Gender Differences in Current Received during Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial electrical stimulation (TCES) is effective in treating many conditions, but it has not been possible to accurately forecast current density within the complex anatomy of a given subject's head. We sought to predict and verify TCES current densities and determine the variability of these current distributions in patient-specific models based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Two experiments were performed. The first experiment estimated conductivity from MRIs and compared the current density results against actual measurements from the scalp surface of 3 subjects. In the second experiment, virtual electrodes were placed on the scalps of 18 subjects to model simulated current densities with 2 mA of virtually applied stimulation. This procedure was repeated for 4 electrode locations. Current densities were then calculated for 75 brain regions. Comparison of modeled and measured external current in experiment 1 yielded a correlation of r = .93. In experiment 2, modeled individual differences were greatest near the electrodes (ten-fold differences were common), but simulated current was found in all regions of the brain. Sites that were distant from the electrodes (e.g. hypothalamus) typically showed two-fold individual differences. MRI-based modeling can effectively predict current densities in individual brains. Significant variation occurs between subjects with the same applied electrode configuration. Individualized MRI-based modeling should be considered in place of the 10-20 system when accurate TCES is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.