ArticleHuman brain mapping2021
Influence of layered skull modeling on the frequency sensitivity and target accuracy in simulations of transcranial current stimulation.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study.NeuroImage · 2023Pooled it
- Mapping the Global Trajectory and Key Trends of Temporal Interference Stimulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multi-Channel AM-TMAS Driving System Based on Amplitude-Modulated Sine Waves.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Amplitude of Intracranial Induced Electric Fields Does Not Linearly Decrease with Age: A Computational Study of Anatomical Effects in Adults.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Beyond the surface: a review of transcranial temporal interference stimulation for deep brain modulation.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Pilot study of using transcranial temporal interfering theta-burst stimulation for modulating motor excitability in rat.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Neuroinflammation mechanisms of neuromodulation therapies for anxiety and depression.Translational psychiatry · 2023Review
- Optimized APPS-tDCS electrode position, size, and distance doubles the on-target stimulation magnitude in 3000 electric field models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Safety Evaluation of Employing Temporal Interference Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Human Studies.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Influence of layered skull modeling on the frequency sensitivity and target accuracy in simulations of transcranial current stimulation.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.