Back

Electrode positioning errors reduce current dose for focal tDCS set-ups: Evidence from individualized electric field mapping

Niemann, F.; Riemann, S.; Hubert, A.-K.; Antonenko, D.; Thielscher, A.; Martin, A. K.; Unger, N.; Flöel, A.; Meinzer, M. F.

2024-02-20 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.02.19.24302917 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveElectrode positioning errors contribute to variability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects. We investigated the impact of electrode positioning errors on current flow for tDCS set-ups with different focality. MethodsDeviations from planned electrode positions were determined using data acquired in an experimental study (N=240 datasets) that administered conventional and focal tDCS during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Comparison of individualized electric field modeling for planned and empirically derived "actual" electrode positions was conducted to quantify the impact of positioning errors on the electric field dose in target regions for tDCS. ResultsPlanned electrode positions resulted in higher current dose in the target regions for focal compared to conventional montages (7-12%). Deviations from planned positions significantly reduced current flow in the target regions, selectively for focal set-ups (26-30%). Dose reductions were significantly larger for focal compared to conventional set-ups (29-43%). ConclusionsPrecise positioning is crucial when using focal tDCS set-ups to avoid significant reductions of current dose in the intended target regions. SignificanceOur results highlight the urgent need to routinely implement methods for improving electrode positioning, minimization of electrode drift, verification of electrode positions before and/or after tDCS and also to consider positioning errors when investigating dose-response relationships, especially for focal set-ups.

Published in Clinical Neurophysiology (predicted rank #15) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.