Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Optimization - From Physics-Based Computer Simulations to High-Fidelity Head Phantom Fabrication and Measurements.
EEG
anatomic models
computer simulations
electric conductivity
electric stimulation
feasibility study
head phantom model
transcranial direct current simulation
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
11
08
2019
accepted:
17
10
2019
entrez:
19
11
2019
pubmed:
19
11
2019
medline:
19
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates neural networks. Computer simulations, while used to identify how currents behave within tissues of different conductivity properties, still need to be complemented by physical models. To better understand tDCS effects on biology-mimicking tissues by developing and testing the feasibility of a high-fidelity 3D head phantom model that has sensing capabilities at different compartmental levels. Models obtained from MRI images generated 3D printed molds. Agar phantoms were fabricated, and 18 monitoring electrodes were placed on specific phantom brain areas. When using rectangular electrodes, the measured and simulated voltages at the monitoring electrodes agreed reasonably well, except at excitation locations. The electric field distribution in different phantom layers appeared better confined with circular electrodes compared to rectangular electrodes. The high-fidelity 3D head model was found to be feasible and comparable with computer-based electrical simulations, with high correlation between simulated and measured brain voltages. This feasibility study supports testing to further assess the reliability of this model.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates neural networks. Computer simulations, while used to identify how currents behave within tissues of different conductivity properties, still need to be complemented by physical models.
OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
To better understand tDCS effects on biology-mimicking tissues by developing and testing the feasibility of a high-fidelity 3D head phantom model that has sensing capabilities at different compartmental levels.
METHODS
METHODS
Models obtained from MRI images generated 3D printed molds. Agar phantoms were fabricated, and 18 monitoring electrodes were placed on specific phantom brain areas.
RESULTS
RESULTS
When using rectangular electrodes, the measured and simulated voltages at the monitoring electrodes agreed reasonably well, except at excitation locations. The electric field distribution in different phantom layers appeared better confined with circular electrodes compared to rectangular electrodes.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The high-fidelity 3D head model was found to be feasible and comparable with computer-based electrical simulations, with high correlation between simulated and measured brain voltages. This feasibility study supports testing to further assess the reliability of this model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31736732
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00388
pmc: PMC6837166
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
388Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Morales-Quezada, El-Hagrassy, Costa, McKinley, Lv and Fregni.
Références
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2018 Nov 27;63(6):683-689
pubmed: 28820729
Neuroimage. 2015 Oct 15;120:25-35
pubmed: 26142274
Clin EEG Neurosci. 2012 Jul;43(3):176-83
pubmed: 22956646
Brain Stimul. 2015 Sep-Oct;8(5):906-13
pubmed: 26026283
Brain Stimul. 2016 Sep-Oct;9(5):641-661
pubmed: 27372845
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Feb;59(2):383-9
pubmed: 22027364
Neurosurgery. 2008 Feb;62(2):E530-2; discussion E532
pubmed: 18382294
Neuroimage. 2006 Aug 1;32(1):138-45
pubmed: 16750398
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2012 Dec 1;32(8):2664-2667
pubmed: 23139442
Behav Neurosci. 2013 Dec;127(6):936-46
pubmed: 24341718
Cell Tissue Res. 2018 Jul;373(1):287-295
pubmed: 28836072
J Neural Eng. 2016 Jun;13(3):036020
pubmed: 27152752
Neuroimage Clin. 2013 May 31;2:759-66
pubmed: 24159560
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 Aug;2016:1778-1781
pubmed: 28268672
J Neural Eng. 2013 Jun;10(3):036018
pubmed: 23649036
Phys Med Biol. 2001 Jan;46(1):77-96
pubmed: 11197680
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Aug;107(2):159-73
pubmed: 9751287
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 18;6:31236
pubmed: 27535462
Brain Stimul. 2015 Sep-Oct;8(5):914-25
pubmed: 26209594
Elife. 2017 Feb 07;6:
pubmed: 28169833
J Neural Eng. 2015 Aug;12(4):046028
pubmed: 26170066
Neuroimage. 2016 Aug 15;137:140-151
pubmed: 27188218
Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 2;9(1):483
pubmed: 29396478
Physiol Meas. 2013 Aug;34(8):937-50
pubmed: 23897099