ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
On the need of individually optimizing temporal interference stimulation of human brains due to inter-individual variability.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Transcranial temporal interference stimulation (TI, TIS, or tTIS), also known as interferential stimulation (IFS), is able to focally stimulate deep brain regions, provided it is properly optimized. We previously presented an algorithm for optimizing TI using two arrays of electrodes and showed that it can achieve more focal stimulation compared to optimized high-definition transcranial electrical stimulation (HD-TES) and conventional optimized TI using two pairs of electrodes, especially in the deep brain areas such as the hippocampus. However, those modeling studies were only performed on an averaged head (MNI152 template) and three individual heads without exploring inter-individual variability. Existing TI works in the literature mostly utilize a common (possibly optimized) montage of two pairs of electrodes on different individual heads without considering inter-individual variability. Material and method: Here we aim to study the inter-individual variability of optimized TI by applying the same optimization algorithms on N = 25 heads using their individualized head models. Specifically, we compared the focality achieved by different stimulation techniques at six different regions of interest (ROI; right hippocampus, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left motor cortex, right amygdala, right caudate, and left thalamus) under both individually optimized and unoptimized montages. We also conducted numerical sensitivity analysis on the individual optimization and performed phantom recordings to test our models. Results: As expected, there is a variability in focality achieved by TI of up to 1.2 cm at the same ROI across subjects due to inter-individual differences in the head anatomy and tissue conductivity. We show that optimized TI using two arrays of electrodes achieves higher focality than that from optimized HD-TES at the same level of modulation intensity at 5 of the 6 ROIs. Compared to using a common montage either optimized from the MNI152 template or from the literature, individually optimized TI using two pairs of electrodes improves the focality by up to 4.4 cm, and by up to 1.1 cm if using two arrays of electrodes. Focality achieved by the individual optimization is sensitive to random changes and can vary up to 9.3 cm due to the non-lienarity of TI physics. Experimental recordings on a head phantom confirms the drop in TI stimulation strength when using unoptimized montages as predicted by our Conclusion: This work demonstrates the need of individually optimizing TI to target deep brain areas, and advocates against using a common head model and montage for TI modeling and experimental studies.
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.