Abstract
Objective Electrode positioning errors contribute to variability of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) effects. We investigated the impact of electrode positioning errors on current flow for tDCS set-ups with different focality.
Methods Deviations from planned electrode positions were determined using data acquired in an experimental study (N=240 datasets) that administered conventional and focal tDCS during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Comparison of individualized electric field modeling for planned and empirically derived “actual” electrode positions was conducted to quantify the impact of positioning errors on the electric field dose in target regions for tDCS.
Results Planned electrode positions resulted in higher current dose in the target regions for focal compared to conventional montages (7-12%). Deviations from planned positions significantly reduced current flow in the target regions, selectively for focal set-ups (26-30%). Dose reductions were significantly larger for focal compared to conventional set-ups (29-43%).
Conclusions Precise positioning is crucial when using focal tDCS set-ups to avoid significant reductions of current dose in the intended target regions.
Significance Our results highlight the urgent need to routinely implement methods for improving electrode positioning, minimization of electrode drift, verification of electrode positions before and/or after tDCS and also to consider positioning errors when investigating dose-response relationships, especially for focal set-ups.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (project grants: ME 3161/3-1; FL 379/26-1; INST 292/155-1 FUGG; Research Unit 5429: FL 379/34-1, FL 379/35-1, ME 3161/5-1, ME 3161/6-1, AN 1103/5-1, TH 1330/6-1, TH 1330/7-1). AT was supported by the Lundbeck foundation (grant R313-2019-622).
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:
The study was approved by the lethics committee of the university medicine greifswald and conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration. Written informed consent was obtained prior to study inclusion.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data statement
The raw MRI data used for efield calculations are not publicly available due to potential identifying information that could compromise participant privacy. Source data are provided in the manuscript and all data used for statistical analyses that are represented in the respective tables and figures can be found here: https://github.com/LawsOfForm/VerFlu_Simulation_Niemann_2023
All analyses were performed using publicly available toolboxes: Anaconda 3.2.31, Python 3.7.13, R version 4.3.1, MATLAB R2021b, SPM12, CONN 20.b, Cat, BrainNetViewer 1.7, SimNIBS 3.2.6, FreeSurfer Version 7.4.1, FSL 6.0.0 and gmsh. Customized codes and instructions are available within the respository.
Abbreviations
- E
- electrical field
- IFG
- inferior frontal gyrus
- magnitude E
- magnitude of electrical field
- M1
- motor cortex
- nE
- normal component of the electrical field
- SimNIBS
- simulation of non-invasive brain stimulation
- tDCS
- transcranial direct current stimulation
- ref
- reference model
