Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical tDCS Electrode Configurations via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches
| dc.contributor.author | Molero Chamizo, Andrés | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nitsche, Michael A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gutiérrez Lérida, Carolina | |
| dc.contributor.author | Salas Sánchez, Ángeles | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martín Riquel, Raquel | |
| dc.contributor.author | Andújar Barroso, Rafael Tomás | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alameda Bailén, José Ramón | |
| dc.contributor.author | García Palomeque, Jesús Carlos | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nathzidy Rivera-Urbina, Guadalupe | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-02T12:36:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-12-02T12:36:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation procedure to modulate cortical excitability and related brain functions. tDCS can effectively alter multiple brain functions in healthy humans and is suggested as a therapeutic tool in several neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, variability of results is an important limitation of this method. This variability may be due to multiple factors, including age, head and brain anatomy (including skull, skin, CSF and meninges), cognitive reserve and baseline performance level, specific task demands, as well as comorbidities in clinical settings. Different electrode montages are a further source of variability between tDCS studies. A procedure to estimate the electric field generated by specific tDCS electrode configurations, which can be helpful to adapt stimulation protocols, is the computational finite element method. This approach is useful to provide a priori modeling of the current spread and electric field intensity that will be generated according to the implemented electrode montage. Here, we present standard, non-personalized model-based electric field simulations for motor, dorsolateral prefrontal, and posterior parietal cortex stimulation according to twenty typical tDCS electrode configurations using two different current flow modeling software packages. The resulting simulated maximum intensity of the electric field, focality, and current spread were similar, but not identical, between models. The advantages and limitations of both mathematical simulations of the electric field are presented and discussed systematically, including aspects that, at present, prevent more widespread application of respective simulation approaches in the field of non-invasive brain stimulation | es_ES |
| dc.description.department | Psicología Clínica y Experimental | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Molero-Chamizo, A., Nitsche, M. A., Gutiérrez Lérida, C., Salas Sánchez, Á., Martín Riquel, R., Andújar Barroso, R. T., Alameda Bailén, J. R., García Palomeque, J. C., & Rivera-Urbina, G. N. (2021). Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical tDCS Electrode Configurations via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches. In Biology (Vol. 10, Issue 12, p. 1230). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121230 | es_ES |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/biology10121230 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2079-7737 (electrónico) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10272/20295 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | es_ES |
| dc.publisher | MDPI | es_ES |
| dc.rights | Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España | * |
| dc.rights.accessRights | open access | es_ES |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ | * |
| dc.subject.other | Current flow | es_ES |
| dc.subject.other | Current intensity | es_ES |
| dc.subject.other | Electric field | es_ES |
| dc.subject.other | Finite element method | es_ES |
| dc.subject.other | tDCS | es_ES |
| dc.subject.unesco | 61 Psicología | es_ES |
| dc.title | Standard Non-Personalized Electric Field Modeling of Twenty Typical tDCS Electrode Configurations via the Computational Finite Element Method: Contributions and Limitations of Two Different Approaches | es_ES |
| dc.type | journal article | es_ES |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication | f1d55184-6162-411d-a94d-79916a127841 | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication | 7d09999e-fb87-46c8-b1a8-dd2f12aec0e6 | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication | 97b74b0c-df14-4a1b-968a-9b550a1373f9 | |
| relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | f1d55184-6162-411d-a94d-79916a127841 |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1


