Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30420198›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Methods to monitor accurate and consistent electrode placements in conventional transcranial electrical stimulation.

Aprinda Indahlastari, Alejandro Albizu, Nicole R Nissim, Kelsey R Traeger, Andrew O'Shea, Adam J Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Aprinda IndahlastariDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: aprinda.indahlas@phhp.ufl.edu.
Alejandro AlbizuDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Nicole R NissimDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Kelsey R TraegerDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Andrew O'SheaDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Adam J WoodsDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Department of Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

Augmenting Cognitive Training in Older Adults - The ACT GrantR01AG054077 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI COHEN, RONALD A, MARSISKE, MICHAEL · 2016 to 2020
$6.9M
Together: Transforming and Translating Discovery to Improve HealthKL2TR001429 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GUIRGIS, FAHEEM W, LEEUWENBURGH, CHRISTIAAN · 2015 to 2023
$5.5M
Research Training in Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cognition in Aging, MCI, and Alzheimer's DiseaseT32AG020499 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MARSISKE, MICHAEL, SMITH, GLENN E. · 2003 to 2024
$3.7M
Neuromodulation of Cognition in Older AdultsK01AG050707 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI WOODS, ADAM J. · 2016 to 2020
$613k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001429NIA NIH HHS K01 AG050707NIA NIH HHS R01 AG054077NIA NIH HHS T32 AG020499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInaccurate electrode placement and electrode drift during a transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) session have been shown to alter predicted field distributions in the brain and thus may contribute to a large variation in tES study outcomes. Currently, there is no objective and independent measure to quantify electrode placement accuracy/drift in tES clinical studies. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We proposed and tested novel methods to quantify accurate and consistent electrode placements in tES using models generated from a 3D scanner.

methodsAccurate electrode placements were quantified as Discrepancy in eight tES participants by comparing landmark distances of physical electrode locations F3/F4 to their model counterparts. Distances in models were computed using curve and linear based methods. Variability of landmark locations in a single subject was computed for multiple stimulation sessions to determine consistent electrode placements across four experimenters. MAIN

resultsWe obtained an average of 0.4 cm in Discrepancy, which was within the placement accuracy/drift threshold (1 cm) for conventional tES electrodes (∼35 cm

conclusionsThese methods provide objective feedback for experimenters on their performance in placing tES electrodes. Applications of these methods can be used to monitor electrode locations in tES studies of a larger cohort using F3/F4 montage and other conventional electrode arrangements. Future studies may include co-registering the landmark locations with imaging-derived head models to quantify the effects of electrode accuracy/drift on predicted field distributions in the brain.

Indexed as

AdultBrainElectrodesHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationElectrode driftElectrode placementsQuality controltES

Identifiers

PMID30420198
PMCPMC6348875

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.