Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34390079›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2021

Influence of layered skull modeling on the frequency sensitivity and target accuracy in simulations of transcranial current stimulation.

Heng Wang, Weiqian Sun, Jianxu Zhang, Zilong Yan, Chenyu Wang, Luyao Wang, Tiantian Liu, Chunlin Li, Duanduan Chen, Funahashi Shintaro and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Heng WangSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8368-4502
Weiqian SunSchool of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Jianxu ZhangSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Zilong YanSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Chenyu WangSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Luyao WangSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Tiantian LiuSchool of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Chunlin LiSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4437-558X
Duanduan ChenSchool of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Funahashi ShintaroSchool of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Jinglong WuSchool of Mechatronical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Tianyi YanSchool of Life Science, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2674-4134

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the development of electrical stimulation technology, especially the emergence of temporally interfering (TI) stimulation, it is necessary to discuss the influence of current frequency on stimulation intensity. Accurate skull modeling is important for transcranial current stimulation (tCS) simulation prediction because of its large role in dispersing current. In this study, we simulated different frequencies of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and TI stimulation in single-layer and layered skull model, compared the electric field via error parameters such as the relative difference measure and relative magnification factor. Pearson correlation analysis and t-test were used to measure the differences in envelope amplitude. The results showed that the intensity of electric field in the brain generated by per unit of stimulation current will increase with current frequency, and the layered skull model had a better response to frequency. An obvious pattern difference was found between the electric fields of the layered and single-layer skull individualized models. For TI stimulation, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the envelope distribution of the layered skull model and the single-layer skull was only 0.746 in the individualized model, which is clearly lower than the correlation coefficient of 0.999 determined from the spherical model. Higher carrier frequencies seemed to be easier to generate a large enough brain electric field envelope in TI stimulation. In conclusion, we recommend using layered skull models instead of single-layer skull models in tCS (particularly TI stimulation) simulation studies in order to improve the accuracy of the prediction of stimulus intensity and stimulus target.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalHumansSkullTranscranial Direct Current Stimulationelectrical stimulationindividualized modellayered skull modeltemporally interfering stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34390079
PMCPMC8519867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.