The influence of white matter lesions on the electric field in transcranial electric stimulation

Kalloch, Benjamin; Weise, Konstantin; Lampe, Leonie; Bazin, Pierre-Louis; Villringer, Arno; Hlawitschka, Mario; Sehm, Bernhard

doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103071

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The minimum correlation between measured via implanted stereo-electroencephalography electrodes and computed voltage distributions for different montages was significant [87]. Kalloch et al (2022) showed that white matter lesions do not perturb the electric field globally and can thus be omitted when modeling subjects with a low-to-medium lesion load. However, the contribution of the white matter lesions significantly increased by ten and above in subjects exhibiting a high lesion load [88].…”

Section: Individual-level Electric Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kalloch et al (2022) showed that white matter lesions do not perturb the electric field globally and can thus be omitted when modeling subjects with a low-to-medium lesion load. However, the contribution of the white matter lesions significantly increased by ten and above in subjects exhibiting a high lesion load [88].…”

Section: Individual-level Electric Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, there has been a trend in computational analysis investigating tES-generated electric fields in non-neurotypical brains in the last five years, in contrast to previous studies focusing on neurotypical head models. Various studies have shown that lesioned or atrophied brain areas significantly affect the current distribution and intensity [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ], depending on the lesion size and the target-to-lesion distances [ 84 , 88 ]. The development of advanced segmentation methods, which allow for the detailed incorporation of brain lesions [ 85 , 86 ] and recent validation of electric-field analysis in lesioned brains, allows the application of electric-field analysis in more challenging modeling situations [ 87 ].…”

Section: The Use Of Computational Electric Field Modeling In Tesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perspectives on Optimized Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Based on Spatial Electric Field Modeling in Humans

Gomez-Tames,

Fernández-Corazza

2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generates an electric field (or current density) in the brain through surface electrodes attached to the scalp. Clinical significance has been demonstrated, although with moderate and heterogeneous results partly due to a lack of control of the delivered electric currents. In the last decade, computational electric field analysis has allowed the estimation and optimization of the electric field using accurate anatomical head models. This review examines recent tES computational studies, providing a comprehensive background on the technical aspects of adopting computational electric field analysis as a standardized procedure in medical applications. Methods: Specific search strategies were designed to retrieve papers from the Web of Science database. The papers were initially screened based on the soundness of the title and abstract and then on their full contents, resulting in a total of 57 studies. Results: Recent trends were identified in individual- and population-level analysis of the electric field, including head models from non-neurotypical individuals. Advanced optimization techniques that allow a high degree of control with the required focality and direction of the electric field were also summarized. There is also growing evidence of a correlation between the computationally estimated electric field and the observed responses in real experiments. Conclusion: Computational pipelines and optimization algorithms have reached a degree of maturity that provides a rationale to improve tES experimental design and a posteriori analysis of the responses for supporting clinical studies.

show abstract

Section: Individual-level Electric Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual-level Electric Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Use Of Computational Electric Field Modeling In Tesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perspectives on Optimized Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Based on Spatial Electric Field Modeling in Humans

Gomez-Tames,

Fernández-Corazza

2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electric field models may therefore help boost the reliability and reproducibility of tDCS effects. However, modelling normally does not account for lesioned tissue.When models have included lesioned tissue 17,25,[32][33][34] conflicting results have been reported: some data suggest lesions have no greater effect on current flow than general anatomical differences 35,36 , whilst others show…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When models have included lesioned tissue 17,25,[32][33][34] conflicting results have been reported: some data suggest lesions have no greater effect on current flow than general anatomical differences 35,36 , whilst others show…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of brain lesions on tDCS-induced electric fields

Evans,

Johnstone,

Zich

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance motor and language rehabilitation after stroke. Though brain lesions distort tDCS-induced electric field (E-field), systematic accounts remain limited. Using electric field modelling, we investigated the effect of 630 synthetic lesions on E-field magnitude in the region of interest (ROI). Models were conducted for two tDCS montages targeting either primary motor cortex (M1) or Broca’s area (BA44). Absolute E-field magnitude in the ROI differed by up to 42% compared to the non-lesioned brain depending on lesion size, lesion-ROI distance, and lesion conductivity value. Lesion location determined the sign of this difference: lesions in-line with the predominant direction of current increased E-field magnitude in the ROI, whereas lesions located in the opposite direction decreased E-field magnitude. We further explored how individualised tDCS can control lesion-induced effects on E-field. Lesions affected the individualised electrode configuration needed to maximise E-field magnitude in the ROI, but this effect was negligible when prioritising the maximisation of radial inward current. Lesions distorting tDCS-induced E-field, is likely to exacerbate inter-individual variability in E-field magnitude. Individualising electrode configuration and stimulator output can minimise lesion-induced variability but requires improved estimates of lesion conductivity. Individualised tDCS is critical to overcome E-field variability in lesioned brains.

show abstract