Systematic evaluation of anatomical details on transcranial electric stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation induced electric fields in a non-human primate model
Mantell, K. E.; Shirinpour, S.; Puonti, O.; Xu, T.; Zimmermann, J.; Heilbronner, S. R.; Thielscher, A.; Opitz, A.
Show abstract
Non-human primates (NHPs) have become key for translational research in noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS). However, in order to create comparable stimulation conditions to humans it is vital to evaluate and match electric fields across species. Numerical models to simulate electric fields are an important tool for experimental planning in NHPs and translation to human studies. It is thus essential to evaluate how anatomical details in NHP models affect NIBS electric fields. Here, we create a highly accurate head model of a non-human primate (NHP) from 10.5 T MR data. We systematically evaluate how muscle tissue and head size (due to different MRI fields of view) affect simulation results in transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation (TES and TMS). Our findings indicate that the inclusion of muscle can affect TES electric field strength up to 29.5% while TMS is largely unaffected. Additionally, comparing a full head model to a cropped head model illustrates the impact of head size on electric fields for both TES and TMS. We find opposing effects between TES and TMS with an increase up to 13.5% for TES and a decrease up to 21.5% for TMS for the cropped head model compared to the full head model. Our results provide important insights into the level of anatomical detail needed for NHP head models and can inform future translational efforts for NIBS studies. HighlightsO_LIWe created a high resolution non-human primate FEM head model from 10.5 T MR data. C_LIO_LIWe ran transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation (TES and TMS) simulations to evaluate the effects of muscle and head size on the induced electric field in the brain. C_LIO_LIWe simulated both isotropic and anisotropic muscle conductivities. C_LIO_LIMuscle tissue can greatly affect simulation results for TES (increase electric field strength by up to 29.5%), but not for TMS. C_LIO_LIThere are opposing, but large effects of using a full head model versus a cropped head model for both TES (increase up to 13.5%) and TMS (decrease of up to 21.5%) C_LI
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Computation of transcranial magnetic stimulation electric fields using self-supervised deep learning 97%
- Fast computational optimization of TMS coil placement for individualized electric field targeting 96%
- On the Reconstruction of Magnetic ResonanceCurrent Density Images of the Human Brain:Pitfalls and Perspectives 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A biophysically constrained brain connectivity model based on stimulation-evoked potentials. 94%
- The rt-TEP tool: real-time visualization of TMS-Evoked Potential to maximize cortical activation and minimize artifacts 94%
- Designing and comparing cleaning pipelines for TMS-EEG data: a theoretical overview and practical example 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diffusion MRI Head Motion Correction Methods are Highly Accurate but Impacted by Denoising and Sampling Scheme 94%
- Modelling the depth-dependent VASO and BOLD responses in human primary visual cortex 93%
- A comparative study between state-of-the-art MRI deidentification and AnonyMI, a new method combining re-identification risk reduction and geometrical preservation 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.