ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Impact of electrode selection on modeling tDCS in the aging brain.
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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dry-printed electrodes for transcutaneous electrical stimulation of innervated muscles: Towards wearable and closed-loop stimulation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Person-specific computational models can estimate transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) current dose delivered to the brain and predict treatment response. Artificially created electrode models derived from virtual 10-20 EEG measurements are typically included in these models as current injection and removal sites. The present study directly compares current flow models generated via artificially placed electrodes ("artificial" electrode models) against those generated using real electrodes acquired from structural MRI scans ("real" electrode models) of older adults. Methods: A total of 16 individualized head models were derived from cognitively healthy older adults (mean age = 71.8 years) who participated in an in-scanner tDCS study with an F3-F4 montage. Visible tDCS electrodes captured within the MRI scans were segmented to create the "real" electrode model. In contrast, the "artificial" electrodes were generated in ROAST. Percentage differences in current density were computed in selected regions of interest (ROIs) as examples of stimulation targets within an F3-F4 montage. Main results: We found significant inverse correlations ( Conclusions: This study demonstrates potential discrepancies in generated current density models using real versus artificial electrode placement when applying tDCS to an older adult cohort. Our findings strongly suggest that future tDCS clinical work should consider closely monitoring and rigorously documenting electrode location during stimulation to model tDCS montages as closely as possible to actual placement. Detailed physical electrode location data may provide more precise information and thus produce more robust tDCS modeling results.
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.