A computational investigation of preconditioning strategies and iterative methods for finite element based neurostimulation simulations

Abstract Computational simulations of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) enable researchers and medical practitioners to investigate this form of neurostimulation with in silico experiments. For these computer-based simulations to be of practical use to the medical community, patient-specific head geometries and finely discretized computational grids must be used. As a result, solving the partial differential equation based mathematical model that governs tDCS can be computationally burdensome. Further, consider the task of identifying optimal electrode configurations and parameters for a particular patient’s condition, head geometry, and therapeutic objectives; it is conceivable that hundreds of tDCS simulations could be executed. It is therefore important and necessary to identify efficient solution methods for medically-based tDCS simulations. To address this requirement, we exhaustively compare the convergence performance of geometric multigrid and the preconditioned conjugate gradient method when solving the linear system of equations generated from a finite element discretization of the tDCS governing equations. Our simulations consist of three commonly used real-world tDCS electrode montages on MRI-derived three-dimensional head models with physiologically-based inhomogeneous tissue conductivities. Simulations are realized on fine computational meshes with resolutions deemed applicable to the medical community, and as a result, our finite element solutions highlight tDCS-specific phenomena such as electric field shunting that contributes to a notable intensification of the stimulation’s electric current dosage. Convergence metrics of each linear system solver are examined, and compared and linked to theoretical estimates. It is shown that the conjugate gradient method achieves superior convergence rates only when preconditioned with an appropriately configured multigrid algorithm. In addition, it is demonstrated that physiological characteristics of tDCS simulations make multigrid as a stand-alone solver highly ineffective, despite the fact that this method is typically effective in solving the tDCS-based Poisson problem. By identifying the solution methods optimal for medically-driven tDCS simulations, our results extend simulation support to high-resolution and high-volume computing applications, and will ultimately help guide tDCS numerical simulations towards becoming an integrated aspect of the patient-specific tDCS treatment protocol.

[1]  Joakim Sundnes,et al.  Computing the electrical activity in the heart , 2006 .

[2]  A. Schweikard,et al.  Finite element simulation of transcranial current stimulation in realistic rat head model , 2011, 2011 5th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering.

[3]  Amy Henderson Squilacote The Paraview Guide , 2008 .

[4]  Alexander Opitz,et al.  Electric field calculations in brain stimulation based on finite elements: An optimized processing pipeline for the generation and usage of accurate individual head models , 2013, Human brain mapping.

[5]  James C. Turner,et al.  An Object-Oriented Framework for Versatile Finite Element Based Simulations of Neurostimulation , 2016 .

[6]  Christophe Geuzaine,et al.  Gmsh: A 3‐D finite element mesh generator with built‐in pre‐ and post‐processing facilities , 2009 .

[7]  Owe Axelsson,et al.  Iteration number for the conjugate gradient method , 2003, Math. Comput. Simul..

[8]  A. Tveito,et al.  Electrical Activity in the Human Heart , 2003 .

[9]  Julie M. Baker,et al.  Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient , 2011, Brain Stimulation.

[10]  William L. Briggs,et al.  A multigrid tutorial , 1987 .

[11]  L. Cohen,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008 , 2008, Brain Stimulation.

[12]  Abhishek Datta,et al.  A pilot study on effects of 4×1 High-Definition tDCS on motor cortex excitability , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[13]  A. Bruaset A survey of preconditioned iterative methods , 1995 .

[14]  Frank Vogel,et al.  Multiscale Coupling of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Neuron Electrodynamics: Modeling the Influence of the Transcranial Electric Field on Neuronal Depolarization , 2014, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[15]  Gottfried Schlaug,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke recovery. , 2008, Archives of neurology.

[16]  Xing Cai,et al.  Performance Modeling of PDE Solvers , 2003 .

[17]  Noriyuki Kushida Correction: Condition Number Estimation of Preconditioned Matrices , 2015, PloS one.

[18]  Alvaro Pascual-Leone,et al.  Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory in patients with Parkinson's disease , 2006, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[19]  Nam-Jong Paik,et al.  Effect of a tDCS electrode montage on implicit motor sequence learning in healthy subjects , 2011, Experimental & Translational Stroke Medicine.

[20]  M. Hallett,et al.  Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[21]  C. Herrmann,et al.  Finite-Element Model Predicts Current Density Distribution for Clinical Applications of tDCS and tACS , 2012, Front. Psychiatry.

[22]  Mark Hallett,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson's disease , 2010, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[23]  Yousef Saad,et al.  Iterative methods for sparse linear systems , 2003 .

[24]  F. Fregni,et al.  Temporal cortex direct current stimulation enhances performance on a visual recognition memory task in Alzheimer disease , 2008, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[25]  Andrzej Rysz,et al.  Numerical model of vagus nerve electrical stimulation , 2009 .

[26]  C H Wolters,et al.  Accuracy and run-time comparison for different potential approaches and iterative solvers in finite element method based EEG source analysis. , 2009, Applied numerical mathematics : transactions of IMACS.

[27]  Adam J. Woods,et al.  Dosage Considerations for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children: A Computational Modeling Study , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  D. B. Heppner,et al.  Considerations of quasi-stationarity in electrophysiological systems. , 1967, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[29]  J. Mehrholz,et al.  Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training in Subacute Stroke Patients , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair.

[30]  Gerhard Zumbusch,et al.  Software Tools for Multigrid Methods , 2003 .

[31]  Thomas Williams,et al.  Gnuplot 4.4: an interactive plotting program , 2010 .

[32]  Richard Barrett,et al.  Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building Blocks for Iterative Methods , 1994, Other Titles in Applied Mathematics.

[33]  Aslak Tveito,et al.  Systems of PDEs and Block Preconditioning , 2003 .

[34]  D. Reato,et al.  Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: Improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad , 2009, Brain Stimulation.

[35]  M. Bikson,et al.  Electrode Positioning and Montage in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation , 2011, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[36]  Felipe Fregni,et al.  Non-invasive brain stimulation to assess and modulate neuroplasticity in Alzheimer's disease , 2011, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[37]  Abhishek Datta,et al.  Validation of finite element model of transcranial electrical stimulation using scalp potentials: implications for clinical dose , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.