Abstract

Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common “frontal” tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric “unilateral” (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric “bilateral” (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population.

Highlights

  • Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response

  • Personalized computational head models (CHMs) for F4–Fp1 and F4–F3 montages over all subjects are available in Fig. 2 which indicates a visible variation in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induced electric field (EF) within a montage among participants

  • The results show that, regardless of montage choice here, the highest EF is produced in limbic system (F4–Fp1: left = 0.1955 ± 0.04, right = 0.155 ± 0.03; F4–F3: left = 0.1540 ± 0.03, right: 0.1544 ± 0.03) and lowest EF can be found in visual network (F4–Fp1: left = 0.0523 ± 0.01, right = 0.0532 ± 0.01; F4–F3: left = 0.0473 ± 0.01, right = 0.0488 ± 0.01) in both montages

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. Neuromodulation effects of tDCS are electrode position (montage) specific and are understood to reflect a combination of different mechanisms of action from the c­ ellular[4,5,6,7] to the large-scale functional network ­scale[8,9,10,11]. To effectively determine the mechanistic effects of tDCS, rather than concentrating on Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:1271

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call