Analysis of electric field strengths and focality for healthy and neurologically impaired subjects upon multiple tDCS stimulation protocols

Pancholi, Utkarsh; Dave, Vijay

doi:10.1007/s42600-023-00322-7

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The therapist has the flexibility to adjust the current intensity, location, duration, and polarity of electrodes based on the individual needs of the patient. Bipolar stimulation involves a two-electrode method where one electrode serves as the active stimulator (anode) placed on the target area of the brain, while the other electrode functions as the cathode and is typically positioned in an extracephelic region 15 . The placement of these electrodes determines the inward current (at the anode) and outward current (at the cathode), leading to depolarization and repolarization of the neural mass, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarity-specific changes in the E-field and focality in mild cognitive impairment patients for HD-tDCS and reverse HD-tDCS

Pancholi,

Dave

2024

Biomed. Res. Ther.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study analyzed polarity-specific changes in the electric field (E-field) and the focal point of tDCS stimulation for both High-Definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) and reverse HD-tDCS considering the head geometry of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) patients. The distance between the left preauricular (LPA) and right preauricular points as well as the inion and nasion were calculated in 3D to measure correlations. Methods: T1-weighted structural MRI images were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We utilized SimNIBS 3.2.6 for MRI image processing, 3D head model generation, application of HD-tDCS and reverse HD-tDCS, E-field analysis, and other relevant parameters. Results: Electric field analysis was conducted on all 10 MCI subjects to examine the distribution and focality of the peak electric field. Despite using uniform stimulation for all subjects, variation was observed in the peak electric field (at the 99.9 th , 99 th , and 95 th percentiles) and focality (at the 75 th and 50 th percentiles). However, the peak electric field and focality values remained consistent when comparing HD-tDCS and reverse HD-tDCS. The only differing quantities were associated with the normal component influenced by the changing direction of the current in HD-tDCS and reverse HD-tDCS. Conclusion: HD-tDCS and reverse HD-tDCS exhibited distinct values for the electric field strength and focality. HD-tDCS demonstrated more positive fields and inflow current compared to reverse HD-tDCS, making it suitable for excitatory effects. Conversely, reverse HD-tDCS would be more appropriate for inhibitory effects due to the prevalence of more negative fields and outflow current.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%