Inter-Individual Variation during Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Normalization of Dose Using MRI-Derived Computational Models

Abhishek Datta, Dennis Truong, Preet Minhas, Lucas C Parra, Marom Bikson, Abhishek Datta, Dennis Truong, Preet Minhas, Lucas C Parra, Marom Bikson

Abstract

Background: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, versatile, and safe neuromodulation technology under investigation for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, adjunct to rehabilitation, and cognitive enhancement in healthy adults. Despite promising results, there is variability in responsiveness. One potential source of variability is the intensity of current delivered to the brain which is a function of both the operator controlled tDCS dose (electrode montage and total applied current) and subject specific anatomy. We are interested in both the scale of this variability across anatomical typical adults and methods to normalize inter-individual variation by customizing tDCS dose. Computational FEM simulations are a standard technique to predict brain current flow during tDCS and can be based on subject specific anatomical MRI.

Objective: To investigate this variability, we modeled multiple tDCS montages across three adults (ages 34-41, one female).

Results: Conventional pad stimulation led to diffuse modulation with maximum current flow between the pads across all subjects. There was high current flow directly under the pad for one subject while the location of peak induced cortical current flow was variable. The High-Definition tDCS montage led to current flow restricted to within the ring perimeter across all subjects. The current flow profile across all subjects and montages was influenced by details in cortical gyri/sulci.

Conclusion: This data suggests that subject specific modeling can facilitate consistent and more efficacious tDCS.

Keywords: HD-tDCS; TMS; head model; tACS; tDCS; transcranial electrical stimulation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Segmentation masks. Subject specific tissue masks of the three subjects used in the study. Skin, skull, CSF, gray matter, and white matter are shown. The traditional sponge and the 4 × 1-HD montage for each of the subjects are also shown. For the sponge montage, the anode (positive) electrode is placed over left M1 and the cathode (negative) electrode over the contralateral-supraorbita. For the 4 × 1-HD montage, the anode electrode is placed over left M1 and is surrounded by four cathode electrodes. Red: anode (positive) electrode and Black: cathode (negative) electrode.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Brain modulation across subjects (M1, M2, F) using conventional pad configuration. For each subject we plotted the induced cortical surface electric field (EF) magnitude: left side view (A.1,B.1,C.1); top view (A.3,B.3,C.3); and right side view (A.4,B.4,C.4). The motor cortex is expanded and scaled to 80% of the peak induced EF for each of the subjects to better highlight current flow (A.2,B.2,C.2). The boxed images show the directional plots (A.5,A.6,B.5,B.6,C.5,C.6). Sample cross-section EF magnitude plots were taken for the frontal and the motor regions. The corresponding MRI scan collected for the subject and the cross-section plots are shown juxtaposed to each other (A.7,A.8,B.7,B.8,C.7,C.8).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Brain modulation across subjects (M1, M2, F) using high-definition 4 × 1 configuration. For each subject we plotted the induced cortical surface electric field (EF) magnitude: left side view (A.1,B.1,C.1); top view (A.3,B.3,C.3); and right side view (A.4,B.4,C.4). The motor cortex is expanded and scaled to 90% of the peak induced EF for each of the subjects to better highlight current flow (A.2,B.2,C.2). The boxed images show the directional plots (A.5,A.6,B.5,B.6,C.5,C.6). Sample cross-section EF magnitude plots were taken for the frontal and the motor regions. The corresponding MRI scan collected for the subject and the cross-section plots are shown juxtaposed to each other (A.7,A.8,B.7,B.8,C.7,C.8).

References

    1. Antal A., Kincses T. Z., Nitsche M. A., Bartfai O., Paulus W. (2004). Excitability changes induced in the human primary visual cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 45, 702–70710.1167/iovs.03-0688
    1. Ashburner J. (2009). Computational anatomy with the SPM software. Magn. Reson. Imaging 27, 1163–117410.1016/j.mri.2009.01.006
    1. Baker J. M., Rorden C., Fridriksson J. (2010). Using transcranial direct-current stimulation to treat stroke patients with aphasia. Stroke 41, 1229–123610.1161/STROKEAHA.110.594317
    1. Bikson M., Bulow P., Stiller J. W., Datta A., Battaglia F., Karnup S. V., et al. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation for major depression:a general system for quantifying transcranial electrotherapy dosage. Curr. Treat. Options Neurol. 10, 377–38510.1007/s11940-008-0040-y
    1. Bikson M., Datta A. (2012). Guidelines for precise and accurate computational models of tDCS. Brain Stimul. 5, 430–43110.1016/j.brs.2011.06.001
    1. Borckardt J. J., Bikson M., Frohman H., Reeves S. T., Datta A., Bansal V., et al. (2012). A pilot study of the tolerability and effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on pain perception. J. Pain 13, 112–12010.1016/j.jpain.2011.07.001
    1. Brunoni A. R., Nitsche M. A., Bolognini N., Bikson M., Wagner T., Merabet L., et al. (2012). Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions. Brain Stimul. 5, 175–19510.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002
    1. Caparelli-Daquer E. M., Zimmermann T. J., Mooshagian E., Parra L. C., Rice J. K., Datta A., et al. (2012). A pilot study on effects of 4 × 1 high-definition tDCS on motor cortex excitability. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc (in press).
    1. Chaieb L., Antal A., Paulus W. (2008). Gender-specific modulation of short-term neuroplasticity in the visual cortex induced by transcranial direct current stimulation. Vis. Neurosci. 23, 77–81
    1. Dasilva A. F., Mendonca M. E., Zaghi S., Lopes M., Dossantos M. F., Spierings E. L., et al. (2012). tDCS-induced analgesia and electrical fields in pain-related neural networks in chronic migraine. Headache 52, 1283–129510.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02141.x
    1. Datta A., Baker J. M., Bikson M., Fridriksson J. (2011). Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. Brain Stimul. 4, 169–17410.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001
    1. Datta A., Bansal V., Diaz J., Patel J., Reato D., Bikson M. (2009). Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul. 2, 201–20710.1016/j.brs.2009.03.005
    1. Datta A., Bikson M., Fregni F. (2010). Transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with skull defects and skull plates: high-resolution computational FEM study of factors altering cortical current flow. Neuroimage 52, 1268–127810.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.252
    1. Datta A., Elwassif M., Battaglia F., Bikson M. (2008). Transcranial current stimulation focality using disc and ring electrode configurations: FEM analysis. J. Neural Eng. 5, 163–17410.1088/1741-2560/5/2/007
    1. Derrfuss J., Brass M., von Cramon D. Y., Lohmann G., Amunts K. (2009). Neural activations at the junction of the inferior frontal sulcus and the inferior precentral sulcus: inter-individual variability, reliability, and association with sulcal morphology. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 299–31110.1002/hbm.20501
    1. Edwards D. J., Krebs H. I., Rykman A., Zipse J., Thickbroom G. W., Mastaglia F. L., et al. (2009). Raised corticomotor excitability of M1 forearm area following anodal tDCS is sustained during robotic wrist therapy in chronic stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 27, 199–207
    1. Fregni F., Boggio P. S., Lima M. C., Ferreira M. J., Wagner T., Rigonatti S. P., et al. (2006). A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain 122, 197–20910.1016/j.pain.2006.02.023
    1. Gur R. C., Gunning-Dixon F., Bilker W. B., Gur R. E. (2002). Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults. Cereb. Cortex 12, 998–100310.1093/cercor/12.9.998
    1. Halko M. A., Datta A., Plow E. B., Scaturro J., Bikson M., Merabet L. B. (2011). Neuroplastic changes following rehabilitative training correlate with regional electrical field induced with tDCS. Neuroimage 57, 885–89110.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.026
    1. Huang Y., Su Y., Rorden C. R., Dmochowski J., Datta A., Parra L. C. (2012). An automated method for high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation modeling. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc (in press).
    1. Lang N., Siebner H. R., Wards N. S., Lee L., Nitsche M. A., Paulus W., et al. (2005). How does transcranial DC stimulation of the primary motor cortex alter regional neuronal activity in the human brain? Eur. J. Neurosci. 22, 495–50410.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04233.x
    1. Loo C. K., Alonzo A., Martin D., Mitchell P. B., Galvez V., Sachdev P. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation for depression: 3-week, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry 200, 52–5910.1192/bjp.bp.111.097634
    1. Mangin J. F., Riviere D., Cachia A., Duchesnay E., Cointepas Y., Papadopoulos-Orfanos D., et al. (2004). A framework to study the cortical folding patterns. Neuroimage 23(Suppl. 1), S129–S13810.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.019
    1. Mendonca M. E., Santana M. B., Baptista A. F., Datta A., Bikson M., Fregni F., et al. (2011). Transcranial DC stimulation in fibromyalgia: optimized cortical target supported by high-resolution computational models. J. Pain 12, 610–61710.1016/j.jpain.2010.12.015
    1. Minhas P., Bansal V., Patel J., Ho J. S., Diaz J., Datta A., et al. (2010). Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS. J. Neurosci. Methods 190, 188–19710.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.05.007
    1. Nitsche M. A., Paulus W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 527, 633–63910.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x
    1. Peterchev A. V., Wagner T. A., Miranda P. C., Nitsche M. A., Paulus W., Lisanby S. H., et al. (2011). Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices. Brain Stimul. (in press).
    1. Radman T., Ramos R. L., Brumberg J. C., Bikson M. (2009). Role of cortical cell type and morphology in subthreshold and suprathreshold uniform electric field stimulation in vitro. Brain Stimul. 2, 215–228, 28 e1–e310.1016/j.brs.2009.03.007
    1. Sadleir R. J., Vannorsdall T. D., Schretlen D. J., Gordon B. (2010). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model. Neuroimage 51, 1310–131810.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.052
    1. Salvador R., Mekonnen A., Ruffini G., Miranda P. C. (2010). Modeling the electric field induced in a high resolution head model during transcranial current stimulation. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2010, 2073–2076
    1. Song C., Schwarzkopf D. S., Kanai R., Rees G. (2011). Reciprocal anatomical relationship between primary sensory and prefrontal cortices in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 31, 9472–948010.1523/JNEUROSCI.0580-11.2011
    1. Suh H. S., Lee W. H., Cho Y. S., Kim J. H., Kim T. S. (2010). Reduced spatial focality of electrical field in tDCS with ring electrodes due to tissue anisotropy. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2010, 2053–2056
    1. Turkeltaub P. E., Benson J., Hamilton R. H., Datta A., Bikson M., Coslett H. B. (2012). Left lateralizing transcranial direct current stimulation improves reading efficiency. Brain Stimul. 5, 201–20710.1016/j.brs.2011.04.002
    1. Wagner T., Fregni F., Fecteau S., Grodzinsky A., Zahn M., Pascual-Leone A. (2007). Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study Neuroimage 35, 1113–112410.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.027

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit