Computational modeling of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in obesity: Impact of head fat and dose guidelines

Dennis Q Truong, Greta Magerowski, George L Blackburn, Marom Bikson, Miguel Alonso-Alonso, Dennis Q Truong, Greta Magerowski, George L Blackburn, Marom Bikson, Miguel Alonso-Alonso

Abstract

Recent studies show that acute neuromodulation of the prefrontal cortex with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can decrease food craving, attentional bias to food, and actual food intake. These data suggest potential clinical applications for tDCS in the field of obesity. However, optimal stimulation parameters in obese individuals are uncertain. One fundamental concern is whether a thick, low-conductivity layer of subcutaneous fat around the head can affect current density distribution and require dose adjustments during tDCS administration. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of head fat on the distribution of current during tDCS and evaluate whether dosing standards for tDCS developed for adult individuals in general are adequate for the obese population. We used MRI-derived high-resolution computational models that delineated fat layers in five human heads from subjects with body mass index (BMI) ranging from "normal-lean" to "super-obese" (20.9 to 53.5 kg/m(2)). Data derived from these simulations suggest that head fat influences tDCS current density across the brain, but its relative contribution is small when other components of head anatomy are added. Current density variability between subjects does not appear to have a direct and/or simple link to BMI. These results indicate that guidelines for the use of tDCS can be extrapolated to obese subjects without sacrificing efficacy and/or treatment safety; the recommended standard parameters can lead to the delivery of adequate current flow to induce neuromodulation of brain activity in the obese population.

Keywords: Body mass index; Finite-element modeling; Head fat; Obesity; tDCS.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Segmentation of five subjects with varying BMI (S1, S2, S3, S4, S#), six tissue compartment models [skin, fat, skull, cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), gray matter and white matter]. High-resolution MRI scans were segmented using a combination of automated and manual techniques. Specific anatomical considerations, such as continuity of CSF, were verified or corrected. Images are shown on the same scale.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Resulting peak electric field magnitude simulated in three montages (M1–SO, 4 × 1 HD-tDCS over M1, IFG-SO) across subjects. Variations in intensity occur across individuals, but these individual variations are consistent in ranking across montages (S3 

Fig. 3

Influence of fat thickness in…

Fig. 3

Influence of fat thickness in isolation. Fat was dilated isometrically with 3 mm…

Fig. 3
Influence of fat thickness in isolation. Fat was dilated isometrically with 3 mm of skin cover; other tissues were unchanged. A moderate increase in the thickness of fat caused little change in peak electric field. There was a slight increase (5.7%) in S# and a slight decrease (8.9%) in S4. Increasing the thickness of fat beyond that physiologically observed led to noticeable decreases in intensity in both S# (15.6%) and S4 (25.7%). Varying the thickness of tissues surrounding the brain not only changes the overall conductance, but also changes the orientation of the electrodes with respect to the brain.

Fig. 4

Skin current density across subjects…

Fig. 4

Skin current density across subjects and montages. The largest change in current density…

Fig. 4
Skin current density across subjects and montages. The largest change in current density magnitude was between the montages utilizing HD electrodes versus conventional pads; interindividual differences are relatively minor. Peak current density was calculated per mA of stimulation.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Influence of fat thickness in isolation. Fat was dilated isometrically with 3 mm of skin cover; other tissues were unchanged. A moderate increase in the thickness of fat caused little change in peak electric field. There was a slight increase (5.7%) in S# and a slight decrease (8.9%) in S4. Increasing the thickness of fat beyond that physiologically observed led to noticeable decreases in intensity in both S# (15.6%) and S4 (25.7%). Varying the thickness of tissues surrounding the brain not only changes the overall conductance, but also changes the orientation of the electrodes with respect to the brain.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Skin current density across subjects and montages. The largest change in current density magnitude was between the montages utilizing HD electrodes versus conventional pads; interindividual differences are relatively minor. Peak current density was calculated per mA of stimulation.

References

    1. Alonso-Alonso M., Pascual-Leone A. The right brain hypothesis for obesity. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;297:1819–1822.
    1. Appelhans B.M. Neurobehavioral inhibition of reward-driven feeding: implications for dieting and obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009;17:640–647.
    1. Bikson M., Datta A. Guidelines for precise and accurate computational models of tDCS. Brain Stimulation. 2012;5:430–431.
    1. Bikson M., Inoue M., Akiyama H., Deans J.K., Fox J.E., Miyakawa H. Effects of uniform extracellular DC electric fields on excitability in rat hippocampal slices in vitro. The Journal of Physiology. 2004;557:175–190.
    1. Bikson M., Datta A., Elwassif M. Establishing safety limits for transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009;120:1033–1034.
    1. Bikson M., Datta A., Rahman A., Scaturro J. Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of “return” electrode's position and size. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2010;121:1976–1978.
    1. Bikson M., Rahman A., Datta A., Fregni F., Merabet L. High-resolution modeling assisted design of customized and individualized transcranial direct current stimulation protocols. Neuromodulation. 2012;15:306–315.
    1. Bikson M., Rahman A., Datta A. Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience. 2012;43:176–183.
    1. Brunoni A.R., Nitsche M.A., Bolognini N., Bikson M., Wagner T., Merabet L. Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions. Brain Stimulation. 2012;5:175–195.
    1. Carnell S., Gibson C., Benson L., Ochner C.N., Geliebter A. Neuroimaging and obesity: current knowledge and future directions. Obesity Reviews. 2012;13:43–56.
    1. Dagher A. Functional brain imaging of appetite. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2012;23:250–260.
    1. Datta A., Bansal V., Diaz J., Patel J., Reato D., Bikson M. Gyri-precise head model of transcranial DC stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimulation. 2009;2:201–207.
    1. Datta A., Baker J.M., Bikson M., Fridriksson J. Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. Brain Stimulation. 2011;4:169–174.
    1. Datta A., Truong D., Minhas P., Parra L.C., Bikson M. Inter-individual variation during transcranial direct current stimulation and normalization of dose using MRI-derived computational models. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2012;3:91.
    1. Dmochowski J.P., Datta A., Bikson M., Su Y., Parra L.C. Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2011;8:046011.
    1. Finkelstein E.A., Khavjou O.A., Thompson H., Trogdon J.G., Pan L., Sherry B. Obesity and severe obesity forecasts through 2030. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012;42:563–570.
    1. Fregni F., Orsati F., Pedrosa W., Fecteau S., Tome F.A., Nitsche M.A. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex modulates the desire for specific foods. Appetite. 2008;51:34–41.
    1. Gabriel C., Gabriel S., Corthout E. The dielectric properties of biological tissues: I. Literature survey. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1996;41:2231–2249.
    1. Goldman R.L., Borckardt J.J., Frohman H.A., O'Neil P.M., Madan A., Campbell L.K. Prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) temporarily reduces food cravings and increases the self-reported ability to resist food in adults with frequent food craving. Appetite. 2011;56:741–746.
    1. Hayman L.A., Shukla V., Ly C., Taber K.H. Clinical and imaging anatomy of the scalp. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 2003;27:454–459.
    1. Hecht D. Transcranial direct current stimulation in the treatment of anorexia. Medical Hypotheses. 2010;74:1044–1047.
    1. Huang Y., Su Y., Rorden C., Dmochowski J., Datta A., Parra L.C. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2012. An automated method for high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation modeling; pp. 5376–5379.
    1. Kronberg G., Bikson M. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2012. Electrode assembly design for transcranial direct current stimulation: A FEM modeling study; pp. 891–895.
    1. Liebetanz D., Koch R., Mayenfels S., Konig F., Paulus W., Nitsche M.A. Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009;120:1161–1167.
    1. Minhas P., Bansal V., Patel J., Ho J.S., Diaz J., Datta A. Electrodes for high-definition transcutaneous DC stimulation for applications in drug delivery and electrotherapy, including tDCS. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2010;190:188–197.
    1. Montenegro R.A., Okano A.H., Cunha F.A., Gurgel J.L., Fontes E.B., Farinatti P.T. Prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation associated with aerobic exercise change aspects of appetite sensation in overweight adults. Appetite. 2012;58:333–338.
    1. Nitsche M.A., Paulus W. Transcranial direct current stimulation—update 2011. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 2011;29:463–492.
    1. Nitsche M.A., Cohen L.G., Wassermann E.M., Priori A., Lang N., Antal A. Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimulation. 2008;1:206–223.
    1. Ogden C.L., Carroll M.D., Kit B.K., Flegal K. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: 2012. Prevalence of Obesity in the United States, 2009–2010.
    1. Rorden C., Bonilha L., Fridriksson J., Bender B., Karnath H.O. Age-specific CT and MRI templates for spatial normalization. NeuroImage. 2012;61:957–965.
    1. Sadleir R.J., Vannorsdall T.D., Schretlen D.J., Gordon B. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in a realistic head model. NeuroImage. 2010;51:1310–1318.
    1. Scheinfeld N.S. Obesity and dermatology. Clinics in Dermatology. 2004;22:303–309.
    1. Shahid S., Weng P., Ahfock T. IEEE/ICME International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering, Harbin, China. 2011. Effect of fat and muscle tissue conductivity on cortical currents—a tDCS study; pp. 211–215.
    1. Tranchina D., Nicholson C. A model for the polarization of neurons by extrinsically applied electric fields. Biophysical Journal. 1986;50:1139–1156.
    1. Truong D.Q., Magerowski G., Pascual-Leone A., Alonso-Alonso M., Bikson M. Conf Proc IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2012. Finite element study of skin and fat delineation in an obese subject for transcranial direct current stimulation; pp. 6587–6590.
    1. Volkow N.D., Wang G.J., Tomasi D., Baler R.D. Obesity and addiction: neurobiological overlaps. Obesity Reviews. 2013;14:2–18.
    1. Wagner T., Fregni F., Fecteau S., Grodzinsky A., Zahn M., Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial direct current stimulation: a computer-based human model study. NeuroImage. 2007;35:1113–1124.
    1. Wang Y.C., McPherson K., Marsh T., Gortmaker S.L., Brown M. Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 2011;378:815–825.
    1. Zheng H., Lenard N.R., Shin A.C., Berthoud H.R. Appetite control and energy balance regulation in the modern world: reward-driven brain overrides repletion signals. International Journal of Obesity. 2009;33(Suppl. 2):S8–S13.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다