ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Investigating the technical feasibility of magnetoencephalography during transcranial direct current stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) can measure weak magnetic fields produced by electrical brain activity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can affect such brain activities. The concurrent application of both, however, is challenging because tDCS presents artifacts on the MEG signal. If brain activity during tDCS can be elucidated by MEG, mechanisms of plasticity-inducing and other effects of tDCS would be more comprehensively understood. We tested the technical feasibility of MEG during tDCS using a phantom that produces an artificial current dipole simulating focal brain activity. An earlier study investigated estimation of a single oscillating phantom dipole during tDCS, and we systematically tested multiple dipole locations with a different MEG device. Methods: A phantom provided by the manufacturer was used to produce current dipoles from 32 locations. For the 32 dipoles, MEG was recorded with and without tDCS. Temporally extended signal space separation (tSSS) was applied for artifact rejection. Current dipole sources were estimated as equivalent current dipoles (ECDs). The ECD modeling quality was assessed using localization error, amplitude error, and goodness of fit (GOF). The ECD modeling performance with and without tDCS, and with and without tSSS was assessed. Results: Mean localization errors of the 32 dipoles were 1.70 ± 0.72 mm (tDCS off, tSSS off, mean ± standard deviation), 6.13 ± 3.32 mm (tDCS on, tSSS off), 1.78 ± 0.83 mm (tDCS off, tSSS on), and 5.73 ± 1.60 mm (tDCS on, tSSS on). Mean GOF findings were, respectively, 92.3, 87.4, 97.5, and 96.7%. Modeling was affected by tDCS and restored by tSSS, but improvement of the localization error was marginal, even with tSSS. Also, the quality was dependent on the dipole location. Discussion: Concurrent tDCS-MEG recording is feasible, especially when tSSS is applied for artifact rejection and when the assumed location of the source of activity is favorable for modeling. More technical studies must be conducted to confirm its feasibility with different source modeling methods and stimulation protocols. Recovery of single-trial activity under tDCS warrants further research.
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.