Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Motor Threshold Combined with Reverse-Calculated Electric Field Modeling Can Determine Individualized tDCS Dosage
Caulfield, K. A.; Badran, B. W.; DeVries, W. H.; Summers, P. M.; Kofmehl, E.; Li, X.; Borckardt, J. J.; Bikson, M.; George, M. S.
Show abstract
BackgroundUnique amongst brain stimulation tools, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) currently lacks an easy method for individualizing dosage.\n\nObjectiveCan one individually dose tDCS? We developed a novel method of reverse-calculating electric-field (E-field) models based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans that can determine individualized tDCS dose. We also sought to develop an MRI-free method of individualizing tDCS dose by measuring transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor threshold (MT) and single pulse, suprathreshold transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) MT and regressing it against E-field modeling.\n\nMethodsIn 29 healthy adults, we acquired TMS MT, TES MT, and structural MRI scans with a fiducial marking the motor hotspot. We then computed a \"reverse-calculated tDCS dose\" of tDCS applied at the scalp needed to cause a 1.00V/m E-field at the cortex. Finally, we examined whether the predicted E-field values correlated with each participants measured TMS MT or TES MT.\n\nResultsWe were able to determine a reverse-calculated tDCS dose for each participant. The Transcranial Electrical Stimulation MT, but not the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation MT, significantly correlated with the calculated tDCS dose determined by E-field modeling (R2 = 0.509, p < 0.001).\n\nConclusionsReverse-calculation E-field modeling, alone or in combination with TES MT, shows promise as a method to individualize tDCS dose. The large range of the reverse-calculated tDCS doses between subjects underscores the likely need to individualize tDCS dose. If these results are confirmed in future studies, TES MT may evolve into an inexpensive and quick method to individualize tDCS dose.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reduced Auditory Perception and Brain Response with Quiet TMS Coil 95%
- Adaptive current-flow models of ECT: Explaining individual static impedance, dynamic impedance, and brain current delivery 95%
- TMS target comparison identifies motor network reorganization associated with behavioral improvement in writer’s cramp dystonia: A randomized, double-blind, Sham-controlled clinical trial 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Towards individualized deep brain stimulation: A stereoelectroencephalography-based workflow for neurostimulation target identification 94%
- Dose-Escalation Study of Amygdalar Transcranial Focused Ultrasound in Healthy Volunteers 92%
- Intraoperative laryngeal muscle and heart rate responses to implanted vagus nerve stimulation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated optimization of deep brain stimulation parameters for modulating neuroimaging-based targets 94%
- TAP: Targeting and analysis pipeline for optimization and verification of coil placement in transcranial magnetic stimulation 93%
- Optimized Monophasic Pulses with Equivalent Electric Field for Rapid-Rate Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effects of tDCS Dose and Electrode Montage on regional cerebral blood flow and motor behavior 97%
- A Systematic Review and Large-Scale tES and TMS Electric Field Modeling Study Reveals How Outcome Measure Selection Alters Results in a Person- and Montage-Specific Manner 96%
- Prospects for transcranial temporal interference stimulation in humans: a computational study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Detailed measurements and simulations of electric field distribution of two TMS coils cleared for obsessive compulsive disorder in the brain and in specific regions associated with OCD 94%
- Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation disrupts neuroplasticity of intracortical motor circuits. 94%
- Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on GABA and Glutamate in Children: A Pilot Study 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.