ArticleJournal of neural engineering2019
Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation-ROAST-a fully automated open-source pipeline.
Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 191 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
191 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 356 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges and future directions of transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025Pooled it
- Towards optimized methodological parameters for maximizing the behavioral effects of transcranial direct current stimulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study.NeuroImage · 2023Pooled it
- A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of concurrent tES-fMRI studies (ContES checklist): a consensus study and statement.Nature protocols · 2022Pooled it
- Can Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Facilitate Post-stroke Cognitive Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Transcranial direct current stimulation for gait recovery following stroke: A systematic review of current literature and beyond.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Electric field intensity and EEG microstate dynamics in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a secondary analysis of a randomized sham-controlled HD-tDCS trial.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Trial
- Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial with gamma-band transcranial alternating current stimulation for the treatment of schizophrenia refractory auditory hallucinations.Translational psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation with concurrent cognitive performance targeting posterior parietal cortex vs prefrontal cortex on working memory in schizophrenia: a randomized clinical trial.Translational psychiatry · 2024Trial
- Dose-response in modulating brain function with transcranial direct current stimulation: From local to network levels.PLoS computational biology · 2023Trial
- Theta tACS impairs episodic memory more than tDCS.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Reduction in Left Frontal Alpha Oscillations by Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Major Depressive Disorder Is Context Dependent in a Randomized Clinical Trial.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2022Trial
- Effects of High Definition-Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Local GABA and Glutamate Levels Among Older Adults with and without Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Exploratory Study.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2021Trial
- Reading proficiency influences the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence from selective modulation of dorsal and ventral pathways of reading in bilinguals.Brain and language · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Machine learning and individual variability in electric field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response.Brain stimulationTrial
- Effects of 6-month at-home transcranial direct current stimulation on cognition and cerebral glucose metabolism in Alzheimer's disease.Brain stimulationTrial
- Trial
- Robust enhancement of motor sequence learning with 4 mA transcranial electric stimulation.Brain stimulationTrial
- Article
131 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveResearch in the area of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) often relies on computational models of current flow in the brain. Models are built based on magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the human head to capture detailed individual anatomy. To simulate current flow on an individual, the subject's MRI is segmented, virtual electrodes are placed on this anatomical model, the volume is tessellated into a mesh, and a finite element model (FEM) is solved numerically to estimate the current flow. Various software tools are available for each of these steps, as well as processing pipelines that connect these tools for automated or semi-automated processing. The goal of the present tool-realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric simulation (ROAST)-is to provide an end-to-end pipeline that can automatically process individual heads with realistic volumetric anatomy leveraging open-source software and custom scripts to improve segmentation and execute electrode placement. APPROACH: ROAST combines the segmentation algorithm of SPM12, a Matlab script for touch-up and automatic electrode placement, the finite element mesher iso2mesh and the solver getDP. We compared its performance with commercial FEM software, and SimNIBS, a well-established open-source modeling pipeline. MAIN
resultsThe electric fields estimated with ROAST differ little from the results obtained with commercial meshing and FEM solving software. We also do not find large differences between the various automated segmentation methods used by ROAST and SimNIBS. We do find bigger differences when volumetric segmentation are converted into surfaces in SimNIBS. However, evaluation on intracranial recordings from human subjects suggests that ROAST and SimNIBS are not significantly different in predicting field distribution, provided that users have detailed knowledge of SimNIBS. SIGNIFICANCE: We hope that the detailed comparisons presented here of various choices in this modeling pipeline can provide guidance for future tool development. We released ROAST as an open-source, easy-to-install and fully-automated pipeline for individualized TES modeling.
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.