Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study
Introduction: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizo...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | NeuroImage: Clinical |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158222000766 |
| _version_ | 1828201242823753728 |
|---|---|
| author | Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel Shun Takahashi Temmuz Karali Eva Mezger Lucia Bulubas Irina Papazova Esther Dechantsreiter Sophia Stoecklein Boris Papazov Axel Thielscher Frank Padberg Daniel Keeser |
| author_facet | Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel Shun Takahashi Temmuz Karali Eva Mezger Lucia Bulubas Irina Papazova Esther Dechantsreiter Sophia Stoecklein Boris Papazov Axel Thielscher Frank Padberg Daniel Keeser |
| author_sort | Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (SCZ). However, the effects of tDCS vary inter-individually, and dose–response relationships have not been established. Stimulation parameters are often tested in healthy subjects and transferred to clinical populations. The current study investigates the variability of individual MRI-based electric fields (e-fields) of standard bifrontal tDCS across individual subjects and diagnoses. Method: The study included 74 subjects, i.e. 25 patients with MDD, 24 patients with SCZ, and 25 healthy controls (HC). Individual e-fields of a common tDCS protocol (i.e. 2 mA stimulation intensity, bifrontal anode-F3/cathode-F4 montage) were modeled by two investigators using SimNIBS (2.0.1) based on structural MRI scans. Result: On a whole-brain level, the average e-field strength was significantly reduced in MDD and SCZ compared to HC, but MDD and SCZ did not differ significantly. Regions of interest (ROI) analysis for PFC subregions showed reduced e-fields in Sallet areas 8B and 9 for MDD and SCZ compared to HC, whereas there was again no difference between MDD and SCZ. Within groups, we generally observed high inter-individual variability of e-field intensities at a higher percentile of voxels. Conclusion: MRI-based e-field modeling revealed significant differences in e-field strengths between clinical and non-clinical populations in addition to a general inter-individual variability. These findings support the notion that dose–response relationships for tDCS cannot be simply transferred from healthy to clinical cohorts and need to be individually established for clinical groups. In this respect, MRI-based e-field modeling may serve as a proxy for individualized dosing. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T11:26:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5e40c06a30c14f749643727e56a1f856 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2213-1582 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T11:26:28Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | NeuroImage: Clinical |
| spelling | doaj.art-5e40c06a30c14f749643727e56a1f8562022-12-22T03:35:13ZengElsevierNeuroImage: Clinical2213-15822022-01-0134103011Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling studyYuki Mizutani-Tiebel0Shun Takahashi1Temmuz Karali2Eva Mezger3Lucia Bulubas4Irina Papazova5Esther Dechantsreiter6Sophia Stoecklein7Boris Papazov8Axel Thielscher9Frank Padberg10Daniel Keeser11Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; NeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany; Corresponding author.Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Neuropsychiatry, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan; Clinical Research and Education Center, Asakayama General Hospital, Sakai, Japan; Graduate School of Rehabilitation Science, Osaka Metropolitan University, Habikino, JapanDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; International Max Planck Research School for Translational Psychiatry (IMPRS-TP), Munich, GermanyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Augsburg, GermanyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyNeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, GermanyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; NeuroImaging Core Unit Munich (NICUM), Munich, Germany; Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Germany; Munich Center for Neurosciences (MCN) – Brain & Mind, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, GermanyIntroduction: Prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions are promising targets for therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, e.g. transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which has been proposed as a novel intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (SCZ). However, the effects of tDCS vary inter-individually, and dose–response relationships have not been established. Stimulation parameters are often tested in healthy subjects and transferred to clinical populations. The current study investigates the variability of individual MRI-based electric fields (e-fields) of standard bifrontal tDCS across individual subjects and diagnoses. Method: The study included 74 subjects, i.e. 25 patients with MDD, 24 patients with SCZ, and 25 healthy controls (HC). Individual e-fields of a common tDCS protocol (i.e. 2 mA stimulation intensity, bifrontal anode-F3/cathode-F4 montage) were modeled by two investigators using SimNIBS (2.0.1) based on structural MRI scans. Result: On a whole-brain level, the average e-field strength was significantly reduced in MDD and SCZ compared to HC, but MDD and SCZ did not differ significantly. Regions of interest (ROI) analysis for PFC subregions showed reduced e-fields in Sallet areas 8B and 9 for MDD and SCZ compared to HC, whereas there was again no difference between MDD and SCZ. Within groups, we generally observed high inter-individual variability of e-field intensities at a higher percentile of voxels. Conclusion: MRI-based e-field modeling revealed significant differences in e-field strengths between clinical and non-clinical populations in addition to a general inter-individual variability. These findings support the notion that dose–response relationships for tDCS cannot be simply transferred from healthy to clinical cohorts and need to be individually established for clinical groups. In this respect, MRI-based e-field modeling may serve as a proxy for individualized dosing.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158222000766Prefrontal tDCSStructural MRIElectric fieldMajor depressive disorderSchizophreniaDorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| spellingShingle | Yuki Mizutani-Tiebel Shun Takahashi Temmuz Karali Eva Mezger Lucia Bulubas Irina Papazova Esther Dechantsreiter Sophia Stoecklein Boris Papazov Axel Thielscher Frank Padberg Daniel Keeser Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study NeuroImage: Clinical Prefrontal tDCS Structural MRI Electric field Major depressive disorder Schizophrenia Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| title | Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study |
| title_full | Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study |
| title_fullStr | Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study |
| title_short | Differences in electric field strength between clinical and non-clinical populations induced by prefrontal tDCS: A cross-diagnostic, individual MRI-based modeling study |
| title_sort | differences in electric field strength between clinical and non clinical populations induced by prefrontal tdcs a cross diagnostic individual mri based modeling study |
| topic | Prefrontal tDCS Structural MRI Electric field Major depressive disorder Schizophrenia Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158222000766 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yukimizutanitiebel differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT shuntakahashi differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT temmuzkarali differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT evamezger differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT luciabulubas differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT irinapapazova differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT estherdechantsreiter differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT sophiastoecklein differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT borispapazov differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT axelthielscher differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT frankpadberg differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy AT danielkeeser differencesinelectricfieldstrengthbetweenclinicalandnonclinicalpopulationsinducedbyprefrontaltdcsacrossdiagnosticindividualmribasedmodelingstudy |