Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943145›Full record

ArticleBiology2021

Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical tDCS Electrode Configurations via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches.

Andrés Molero-Chamizo, Michael A Nitsche, Carolina Gutiérrez Lérida, Ángeles Salas Sánchez, Raquel Martín Riquel, Rafael Tomás Andújar Barroso, José Ramón Alameda Bailén, Jesús Carlos García Palomeque, Guadalupe Nathzidy Rivera-Urbina

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrés Molero-ChamizoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0381-8927
Michael A NitscheLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, 44139 Dortmund, Germany.
Carolina Gutiérrez LéridaDepartment of Psychology, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.
Ángeles Salas SánchezDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.
Raquel Martín RiquelDepartment of Psychology, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.
Rafael Tomás Andújar BarrosoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.
José Ramón Alameda BailénDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6095-838X
Jesús Carlos García PalomequeHistology Department, School of Medicine, Cadiz University and District Jerez Costa-N., Andalusian Health Service, 11003 Cádiz, Spain.
Guadalupe Nathzidy Rivera-UrbinaPsychology Center, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California, Ensenada 22890, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-8102-4992
Universidad de Huelva · ESUniversity of Córdoba · ESAndalusian Health Service · ESTU Dortmund University · DEUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation procedure to modulate cortical excitability and related brain functions. tDCS can effectively alter multiple brain functions in healthy humans and is suggested as a therapeutic tool in several neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, variability of results is an important limitation of this method. This variability may be due to multiple factors, including age, head and brain anatomy (including skull, skin, CSF and meninges), cognitive reserve and baseline performance level, specific task demands, as well as comorbidities in clinical settings. Different electrode montages are a further source of variability between tDCS studies. A procedure to estimate the electric field generated by specific tDCS electrode configurations, which can be helpful to adapt stimulation protocols, is the computational finite element method. This approach is useful to provide a priori modeling of the current spread and electric field intensity that will be generated according to the implemented electrode montage. Here, we present standard, non-personalized model-based electric field simulations for motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation according to twenty typical tDCS electrode configurations using two different current flow modeling software packages. The resulting simulated maximum intensity of the electric field, focality, and current spread were similar, but not identical, between models. The advantages and limitations of both mathematical simulations of the electric field are presented and discussed systematically, including aspects that, at present, prevent more widespread application of respective simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation.

Indexed as

current flowcurrent intensityelectric fieldfinite element methodtDCS

Identifiers

PMID34943145
PMCPMC8698402
OpenAlexW3215771747

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.