The value and cost of complexity in predictive modelling: role of tissue anisotropic conductivity and fibre tracts in neuromodulation

Shahid, Syed Salman; Bikson, Marom; Salman, Humaira; Wen, Peng; Ahfock, Tony

doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/036002

Cited by 61 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Montages with (multiple) small electrodes do not affect the maximal V/m range with respect to safety considerations (Dmochowski et al, 2011, 2013; Edwards et al, 2013; Ruffini et al, 2014; Sadleir et al, 2012). Because electric current is conducted about 10 times better tangentially along a fiber than perpendicular to it, computational models can take fiber orientation into account by calculating on the basis of diffusion tensor image data in the MRI (e.g., free shareware www.simnibs.de) (Metwally et al, 2012; Opitz et al, 2015; Shahid et al, 2013, 2014). …”

Section: Modeling (Heating Induced Voltages)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Antal

Alekseichuk

Bikson

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

877

728

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity ‘conventional’ TES defined as <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10 mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6–7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

show abstract

Section: Modeling (Heating Induced Voltages)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Antal

Alekseichuk

Bikson

et al. 2017

Clinical Neurophysiology

877

728

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Masks may be synthetic (i.e., generic in a rendering software with simplified shapes; Wagner et al, 2007) or based on imaging from individuals (e.g., MRI, CT; Datta et al, 2009;Lu and Ueno, 2013). Specific imaging sequences may provide further insight into tissue properties, such as use of DTI to predict anisotropy (Schmidt and van Rienen, 2012;Sweet et al, 2014)-though implementation is not without debate (Diczfalusy et al, 2015;Shahid et al, 2014).…”

Section: Step 1: Forward Models Of Current Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling sequence and quasi-uniform assumption in computational neurostimulation

Bikson¹,

Truong²,

Mourdoukoutas³

et al. 2015

Progress in Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individual differences in skull thickness and shape may interact with how much current is actually reaching the brain (Datta et al, 2009). Therefore, even with advanced modeling of the current (Wagner et al, 2007; Shahid et al, 2014), it is difficult to predict how much current is actually reaching the brain. Third, the stimulation effects, as stated earlier in the Introduction, are not straightforward.…”

Section: Limitations Of Graph-theory and Brain Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best of both worlds: promise of combining brain stimulation and brain connectome

Luft

Pereda

Banissy

et al. 2014

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial current brain stimulation (tCS) is becoming increasingly popular as a non-pharmacological non-invasive neuromodulatory method that alters cortical excitability by applying weak electrical currents to the scalp via a pair of electrodes. Most applications of this technique have focused on enhancing motor and learning skills, as well as a therapeutic agent in neurological and psychiatric disorders. In these applications, similarly to lesion studies, tCS was used to provide a causal link between a function or behavior and a specific brain region (e.g., primary motor cortex). Nonetheless, complex cognitive functions are known to rely on functionally connected multitude of brain regions with dynamically changing patterns of information flow rather than on isolated areas, which are most commonly targeted in typical tCS experiments. In this review article, we argue in favor of combining tCS method with other neuroimaging techniques (e.g., fMRI, EEG) and by employing state-of-the-art connectivity data analysis techniques (e.g., graph theory) to obtain a deeper understanding of the underlying spatiotemporal dynamics of functional connectivity patterns and cognitive performance. Finally, we discuss the possibilities of using these combined techniques to investigate the neural correlates of human creativity and to enhance creativity.

show abstract

The value and cost of complexity in predictive modelling: role of tissue anisotropic conductivity and fibre tracts in neuromodulation

Cited by 61 publications

References 104 publications

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines

Modeling sequence and quasi-uniform assumption in computational neurostimulation

Best of both worlds: promise of combining brain stimulation and brain connectome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About