Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33446802›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes.

Ghazaleh Soleimani, Mehrdad Saviz, Marom Bikson, Farzad Towhidkhah, Rayus Kuplicki, Martin P Paulus, Hamed Ekhtiari

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Four dimensions of individualization in brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: context, target, dose, and timing.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ghazaleh SoleimaniBiomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran.
Mehrdad SavizBiomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran. msaviz@aut.ac.ir.
Marom BiksonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, City College of New York of CUNY, New York, NY, USA.
Farzad TowhidkhahBiomedical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran.
Rayus KuplickiLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.
Martin P PaulusLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.
Hamed EkhtiariLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.
Amirkabir University of Technology · IRLaureate Institute for Brain Research · USCity College of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common "frontal" tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric "unilateral" (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric "bilateral" (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdultBrainHumansMaleNerve NetPrefrontal Cortex

Identifiers

PMID33446802
PMCPMC7809198
OpenAlexW3125424018

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.