ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
MR imaging of the magnetic fields induced by injected currents can guide improvements of individualized head volume conductor models.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. 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.
- Clinical Applications of Electrical Conductivity Imaging Using MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Increasing the measurable frequency range of magnetic field oscillations with off-resonance spin-lock preparation pulses.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Simulating tDCS-induced electric fields in stroke patients: Realistic-lesion head models are needed.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2026Article
- Article
- The effect of brain tissue anisotropy on the electric field caused by transcranial electric stimulation: Sensitivity analysis and magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Volume conductor models of the human head are routinely used to estimate the induced electric fields in transcranial brain stimulation (TBS) and for source localization in electro- and magnetoencephalography (EEG and MEG). Magnetic resonance current density imaging (MRCDI) has the potential to act as a non-invasive method for dose control and model validation but requires very sensitive MRI acquisition approaches. A double-echo echo-planar imaging (EPI) method is here introduced. It combines fast and sensitive imaging of the magnetic fields generated by the current flow of transcranial electric stimulation with increased robustness to physiological noise. For validation, noise floor measurements without injected currents were obtained in five subjects for an established multi-echo gradient-echo (MGRE) sequence and the new EPI method. In addition, data with current injection were acquired in each subject with a right-left (RL) and anterior-posterior (AP) electrode montage with both sequences to assess the accuracy of subject-specific detailed head models. In line with previous findings, the noise floor measurements showed that the MGRE results suffered from spatial low-frequency noise patterns, which were mostly absent in the EPI data. A recently published approach optimizes the ohmic conductivities of subject-specific head models by minimizing the difference between simulated and measured current-induced magnetic fields. Here, simulations demonstrated that the MGRE noise patterns have a larger negative impact on the optimization results than the EPI noise. For the current injection measurements, a larger discrepancy was found for the RL electrode montage compared with the AP electrode montage consistently for all subjects. This discrepancy that remained in part also after optimization of the ohmic conductivities, was similar for the data of the two sequences and larger than the measurement noise, and thus demonstrates systematic biases in the volume conductor models. We have shown that EPI-based MRCDI is superior to established techniques by mitigating the effects of previously reported spatial low-frequency noise in MRCDI if limited spatial resolution is acceptable. Additionally, the consistent inter-subject results indicate that MRCDI is capable of picking up inaccuracies in computational head models and will be useful to guide systematic improvements.
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.