Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27152752›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2016

Optimization of focality and direction in dense electrode array transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Seyhmus Guler, Moritz Dannhauer, Burak Erem, Rob Macleod, Don Tucker, Sergei Turovets, Phan Luu, Deniz Erdogmus, Dana H Brooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Comparison between conventional and HD-tDCS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in children and adolescents with ADHD.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Seyhmus GulerDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Moritz DannhauerDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Burak EremBoston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rob MacleodCenter for Integrative Biomedical Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Don TuckerElectrical Geodesics, Inc. (EGI), Eugene, OR, USA.
Sergei TurovetsElectrical Geodesics, Inc. (EGI), Eugene, OR, USA.
Phan LuuElectrical Geodesics, Inc. (EGI), Eugene, OR, USA.
Deniz ErdogmusDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Dana H BrooksDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

TRD - VisualizationP41GM103545 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER R., MACLEOD, ROB S. · 2012 to 2019
$9.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) aims to alter brain function non-invasively via electrodes placed on the scalp. Conventional tDCS uses two relatively large patch electrodes to deliver electrical current to the brain region of interest (ROI). Recent studies have shown that using dense arrays containing up to 512 smaller electrodes may increase the precision of targeting ROIs. However, this creates a need for methods to determine effective and safe stimulus patterns as the number of degrees of freedom is much higher with such arrays. Several approaches to this problem have appeared in the literature. In this paper, we describe a new method for calculating optimal electrode stimulus patterns for targeted and directional modulation in dense array tDCS which differs in some important aspects with methods reported to date. APPROACH: We optimize stimulus pattern of dense arrays with fixed electrode placement to maximize the current density in a particular direction in the ROI. We impose a flexible set of safety constraints on the current power in the brain, individual electrode currents, and total injected current, to protect subject safety. The proposed optimization problem is convex and thus efficiently solved using existing optimization software to find unique and globally optimal electrode stimulus patterns. MAIN

resultsSolutions for four anatomical ROIs based on a realistic head model are shown as exemplary results. To illustrate the differences between our approach and previously introduced methods, we compare our method with two of the other leading methods in the literature. We also report on extensive simulations that show the effect of the values chosen for each proposed safety constraint bound on the optimized stimulus patterns. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed optimization approach employs volume based ROIs, easily adapts to different sets of safety constraints, and takes negligible time to compute. An in-depth comparison study gives insight into the relationship between different objective criteria and optimized stimulus patterns. In addition, the analysis of the interaction between optimized stimulus patterns and safety constraint bounds suggests that more precise current localization in the ROI, with improved safety criterion, may be achieved by careful selection of the constraint bounds.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainComputer SimulationElectrodesFinite Element AnalysisHeadHumansModels, AnatomicSafetyTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27152752
PMCPMC5198846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.