Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31426036›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2019

Evaluation of methodologies for computing the deep brain stimulation volume of tissue activated.

Gordon Duffley, Daria Nesterovich Anderson, Johannes Vorwerk, Alan D Dorval, Christopher R Butson

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The electric brain: approach to suboptimal DBS parameters.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. The interplay between pulse width and activation depth in TENS: a computational study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Gordon DuffleyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America. Scientific Computing & Imaging (SCI) Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America.
Daria Nesterovich Anderson
Johannes Vorwerk
Alan D Dorval
Christopher R Butson
University of Utah · US

Funding

Mobile Decision Support System for Nurse Management of Neuromodulation TherapyR01NR014852 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI BUTSON, CHRISTOPHER R, OKUN, MICHAEL S · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR014852
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComputational models are a popular tool for predicting the effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on neural tissue. One commonly used model, the volume of tissue activated (VTA), is computed using multiple methodologies. We quantified differences in the VTAs generated by five methodologies: the traditional axon model method, the electric field norm, and three activating function based approaches-the activating function at each grid point in the tangential direction (AF-Tan) or in the maximally activating direction (AF-3D), and the maximum activating function along the entire length of a tangential fiber (AF-Max). APPROACH: We computed the VTA using each method across multiple stimulation settings. The resulting volumes were compared for similarity, and the methodologies were analyzed for their differences in behavior. MAIN

resultsActivation threshold values for both the electric field norm and the activating function varied with regards to electrode configuration, pulse width, and frequency. All methods produced highly similar volumes for monopolar stimulation. For bipolar electrode configurations, only the maximum activating function along the tangential axon method, AF-Max, produced similar volumes to those produced by the axon model method. Further analysis revealed that both of these methods are biased by their exclusive use of tangential fiber orientations. In contrast, the activating function in the maximally activating direction method, AF-3D, produces a VTA that is free of axon orientation and projection bias. SIGNIFICANCE: Simulating tangentially oriented axons, the standard approach of computing the VTA, is too computationally expensive for widespread implementation and yields results biased by the assumption of tangential fiber orientation. In this work, we show that a computationally efficient method based on the activating function, AF-Max, reliably reproduces the VTAs generated by direct axon modeling. Further, we propose another method, AF-3D as a potentially superior model for representing generic neural tissue activation.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, NeurologicalAxonsBrainDeep Brain StimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID31426036
PMCPMC7187771
OpenAlexW2969525203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.