ArticleNeuroImage2023
Anatomical details affect electric field predictions for non-invasive brain stimulation in non-human primates.
Article in NeuroImage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms of transcranial magnetic brain stimulation.Physiological reviews · 2026Review
- Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates primate brain dynamics across states of consciousness.eLife · 2025Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of U-Net based transcranial magnetic stimulation electric field estimations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A semi-automated pipeline for finite element modeling of electric field induced in nonhuman primates by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Article
- Systematic cross-species comparison of prefrontal cortex functional networks targeted via transcranial magnetic stimulation.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Non-human primates (NHPs) have become key for translational research in noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS). However, in order to create comparable stimulation conditions for humans it is vital to study the accuracy of current modeling practices across species. Numerical models to simulate electric fields are an important tool for experimental planning in NHPs and translation to human studies. It is thus essential whether and to what extent the anatomical details of NHP models agree with current modeling practices when calculating NIBS electric fields. Here, we create highly accurate head models of two non-human primates (NHP) MR data. We evaluate how muscle tissue and head field of view (depending on MRI parameters) affect simulation results in transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation (TES and TMS). Our findings indicate that the inclusion of anisotropic muscle can affect TES electric field strength up to 22% while TMS is largely unaffected. Additionally, comparing a full head model to a cropped head model illustrates the impact of head field of view on electric fields for both TES and TMS. We find opposing effects between TES and TMS with an increase up to 24.8% for TES and a decrease up to 24.6% for TMS for the cropped head model compared to the full head model. Our results provide important insights into the level of anatomical detail needed for NHP head models and can inform future translational efforts for NIBS studies.
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.