Abstract
Background Most transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) clinical trials place target electrodes over DLPFC based on the assumption that it would mainly stimulate the underlying brain region. Here, we assessed delivered electric fields (EF) using a symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC stimulation montage to identify additional prefrontal regions that are inadvertently targeted beyond DLPFC.
Methods Head models were generated from the human connectome project database’s T1+T2-weighted MRIs of 80 healthy adults. Two common DLPFC montages (symmetric: F4/F3, asymmetric: F4/Fp1 with 5×7cm electrodes, 2mA intensity) were simulated. Averaged EF was extracted from (1) the center of the target electrode (F4), and (2) the top 1% of voxels that showed the strongest EF in individualized EF maps. Inter-individual variabilities were quantified with standard deviation (SD) of EF peak location and value. These steps were replicated with 66 participants with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) as an independent clinical population.
Results In the healthy adults, EFs in the frontopolar area were significantly higher than EF “under” the target electrode in both symmetric (peak:0.41±0.06, F4:0.22±0.04) and asymmetric (peak:0.38±0.04, F4:0.2±0.04) montages (Heges’g>0.7). Group-level location for EF peaks in MNI space was located in the medial-frontopolar cortex, such that individualized EF peaks were placed in a cube with a volume of symmetric/asymmetric: 29cm3/46cm3. Similar results (with slight between-group differences) were found for MUDs that highlighted the role of the medial frontopolar cortex in both healthy and clinical populations.
Conclusions We highlighted that in common DLPFC tES montages, DLPFC was not maximally targeted and the frontopolar area was the area that received the highest EFs. Considering inter-individual and inter-groups variability, we specifically recommended that the frontopolar role should be considered as a potential mechanism underlying the clinical efficacy of DLPFC stimulation.
Highlights
In most frequently used DLPFC tES montages, EF peaks were not located under the electrodes
The EF peak in DLPFC montages is located in the medial frontopolar area
An independent clinical population showed slight between-group differences
There is a large interindividual variation in both location and strength of the EF peak
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
T1 and T2 weighted MR images of 100 healthy subjects obtained from the publically available Human connectome project database, http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/data/) with deidentified anatomical scans were used. For the independent clinical population, the study was approved by the Western IRB (WIRB Protocol #20171742) (all subjects were recruited during their early abstinence from the 12&12 residential drug addiction treatment center in Tulsa, Oklahoma in the process of a clinical trial to measure the efficacy of tDCS on methamphetamine craving (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03382379)).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw database and head models generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.
