Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940660›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

The impact of brain lesions on tDCS-induced electric fields.

Carys Evans, Ainslie Johnstone, Catharina Zich, Jenny S A Lee, Nick S Ward, Sven Bestmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. [Simulation study on parameter optimization of transcranial direct current stimulation based on rat brain slices].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carys Evans *Department for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. carys.evans@ucl.ac.uk.
Ainslie Johnstone *Department for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Catharina ZichDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Jenny S A LeeDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Nick S WardDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Sven BestmannDepartment for Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance motor and language rehabilitation after stroke. Though brain lesions distort tDCS-induced electric field (E-field), systematic accounts remain limited. Using electric field modelling, we investigated the effect of 630 synthetic lesions on E-field magnitude in the region of interest (ROI). Models were conducted for two tDCS montages targeting either primary motor cortex (M1) or Broca's area (BA44). Absolute E-field magnitude in the ROI differed by up to 42% compared to the non-lesioned brain depending on lesion size, lesion-ROI distance, and lesion conductivity value. Lesion location determined the sign of this difference: lesions in-line with the predominant direction of current increased E-field magnitude in the ROI, whereas lesions located in the opposite direction decreased E-field magnitude. We further explored how individualised tDCS can control lesion-induced effects on E-field. Lesions affected the individualised electrode configuration needed to maximise E-field magnitude in the ROI, but this effect was negligible when prioritising the maximisation of radial inward current. Lesions distorting tDCS-induced E-field, is likely to exacerbate inter-individual variability in E-field magnitude. Individualising electrode configuration and stimulator output can minimise lesion-induced variability but requires improved estimates of lesion conductivity. Individualised tDCS is critical to overcome E-field variability in lesioned brains.

Indexed as

StrokeTranscranial Direct Current StimulationBrainBroca AreaHeadHumans

Identifiers

PMID37940660
PMCPMC10632455
OpenAlexW4388487027

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.