Changing head model extent affects finite element predictions of transcranial direct current stimulation distributions

OBJECTIVE In this study, we determined efficient head model sizes relative to predicted current densities in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). APPROACH Efficiency measures were defined based on a finite element (FE) simulations performed using nine human head models derived from a single MRI data set, having extents varying from 60%-100% of the original axial range. Eleven tissue types, including anisotropic white matter, and three electrode montages (T7-T8, F3-right supraorbital, Cz-Oz) were used in the models. MAIN RESULTS Reducing head volume extent from 100% to 60%, that is, varying the model's axial range from between the apex and C3 vertebra to one encompassing only apex to the superior cerebellum, was found to decrease the total modeling time by up to half. Differences between current density predictions in each model were quantified by using a relative difference measure (RDM). Our simulation results showed that [Formula: see text] was the least affected (a maximum of 10% error) for head volumes modeled from the apex to the base of the skull (60%-75% volume). SIGNIFICANCE This finding suggested that the bone could act as a bioelectricity boundary and thus performing FE simulations of tDCS on the human head with models extending beyond the inferior skull may not be necessary in most cases to obtain reasonable precision in current density results.

[1]  P. Bruno,et al.  Referenced EEG and head volume conductor model: geometry and parametrical setting , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[2]  Socrates Dokos,et al.  A computational modelling study of transcranial direct current stimulation montages used in depression , 2014, NeuroImage.

[3]  Eung Je Woo,et al.  Magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography (MREIT) for high-resolution conductivity imaging , 2008, Physiological measurement.

[4]  Douglas L. Rosene,et al.  The Geometric Structure of the Brain Fiber Pathways , 2012, Science.

[5]  Ursula van Rienen,et al.  Impact of uncertain head tissue conductivity in the optimization of transcranial direct current stimulation for an auditory target , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Yu Huang,et al.  Automated MRI segmentation for individualized modeling of current flow in the human head , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[7]  B. Gordon,et al.  Target Optimization in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation , 2012, Front. Psychiatry.

[8]  Carlo Caltagirone,et al.  tDCS over the left inferior frontal cortex improves speech production in aphasia , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[10]  Tae-Seong Kim,et al.  Influence of anisotropic conductivity in the skull and white matter on transcranial direct current stimulation via an anatomically realistic finite element head model , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  W. Sutherling,et al.  Conductivities of Three-Layer Human Skull , 2004, Brain Topography.

[12]  Rosalind J. Sadleir,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model , 2010, NeuroImage.

[13]  Markus Zahn,et al.  Transcranial direct current stimulation: A computer-based human model study , 2007, NeuroImage.

[14]  D. Stegeman,et al.  Simulating Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With a Detailed Anisotropic Human Head Model , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[15]  M. Bikson,et al.  Left lateralizing transcranial direct current stimulation improves reading efficiency , 2012, Brain Stimulation.

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

[17]  Timothy Edward John Behrens,et al.  Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion‐weighted MR imaging , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  R. Schwarzenberger,et al.  The finite element method : a first approach , 1981 .

[19]  D. Stegeman,et al.  Investigation of tDCS volume conduction effects in a highly realistic head model , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[21]  J. Born,et al.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation during Sleep Improves Declarative Memory , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  Abhishek Datta,et al.  Guidelines for precise and accurate computational models of tDCS , 2012, Brain Stimulation.

[23]  Rosalind J. Sadleir,et al.  A comparison between block and smooth modeling in finite element simulations of tDCS , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[24]  R. Sadleir,et al.  Modeling Skull Electrical Properties , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

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

[26]  P. Celnik,et al.  Cerebellar direct current stimulation enhances motor learning in older adults , 2014, Neurobiology of Aging.

[27]  Peng Wen,et al.  Assessment of electric field distribution in anisotropic cortical and subcortical regions under the influence of tDCS , 2014, Bioelectromagnetics.

[28]  Sang Ho Ahn,et al.  Primary motor cortex activation by transcranial direct current stimulation in the human brain , 2008, Neuroscience Letters.

[29]  R. W. Lau,et al.  The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.