Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study
Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quanti...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | NeuroImage |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192300530X |
| _version_ | 1797663879285702656 |
|---|---|
| author | Sybren Van Hoornweder Marten Nuyts Joana Frieske Stefanie Verstraelen Raf L.J. Meesen Kevin A. Caulfield |
| author_facet | Sybren Van Hoornweder Marten Nuyts Joana Frieske Stefanie Verstraelen Raf L.J. Meesen Kevin A. Caulfield |
| author_sort | Sybren Van Hoornweder |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quantify E-fields vary considerably and a thorough comparison is missing. Objectives: This two-part study aimed to examine the different outcome measures used to report on tES and TMS induced E-fields, including volume- and surface-level gray matter, region of interest (ROI), whole brain, geometrical, structural, and percentile-based approaches. The study aimed to guide future research in informed selection of appropriate outcome measures. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies quantifying E-fields. The identified outcome measures were compared across volume- and surface-level E-field data in ten tES and TMS modalities targeting two common targets in 100 healthy individuals. Results: In the systematic review, we extracted 308 outcome measures from 202 studies that adopted either a gray matter volume-level (n = 197) or surface-level (n = 111) approach. Volume-level results focused on E-field magnitude, while surface-level data encompassed E-field magnitude (n = 64) and normal/tangential E-field components (n = 47). E-fields were extracted in ROIs, such as brain structures and shapes (spheres, hexahedra and cylinders), or the whole brain. Percentiles or mean values were mostly used to quantify E-fields. Our modeling study, which involved 1,000 E-field models and > 1,000,000 extracted E-field values, revealed that different outcome measures yielded distinct E-field values, analyzed different brain regions, and did not always exhibit strong correlations in the same within-subject E-field model. Conclusions: Outcome measure selection significantly impacts the locations and intensities of extracted E-field data in both tES and TMS E-field models. The suitability of different outcome measures depends on the target region, TMS/tES modality, individual anatomy, the analyzed E-field component and the research question. To enhance the quality, rigor, and reproducibility in the E-field modeling domain, we suggest standard reporting practices across studies and provide four recommendations. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T19:21:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7f688ed47d44428aafd61472fc9360c4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1095-9572 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T19:21:10Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | NeuroImage |
| spelling | doaj.art-7f688ed47d44428aafd61472fc9360c42023-10-07T04:33:51ZengElsevierNeuroImage1095-95722023-11-01281120379Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling studySybren Van Hoornweder0Marten Nuyts1Joana Frieske2Stefanie Verstraelen3Raf L.J. Meesen4Kevin A. Caulfield5REVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Corresponding author: Hasselt University, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Agoralaan, Building A, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.REVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, BelgiumREVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumREVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, BelgiumREVAL - Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumBrain Stimulation Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Corresponding author: Department of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President Street, 504 N, Charleston, SC, USA.Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quantify E-fields vary considerably and a thorough comparison is missing. Objectives: This two-part study aimed to examine the different outcome measures used to report on tES and TMS induced E-fields, including volume- and surface-level gray matter, region of interest (ROI), whole brain, geometrical, structural, and percentile-based approaches. The study aimed to guide future research in informed selection of appropriate outcome measures. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies quantifying E-fields. The identified outcome measures were compared across volume- and surface-level E-field data in ten tES and TMS modalities targeting two common targets in 100 healthy individuals. Results: In the systematic review, we extracted 308 outcome measures from 202 studies that adopted either a gray matter volume-level (n = 197) or surface-level (n = 111) approach. Volume-level results focused on E-field magnitude, while surface-level data encompassed E-field magnitude (n = 64) and normal/tangential E-field components (n = 47). E-fields were extracted in ROIs, such as brain structures and shapes (spheres, hexahedra and cylinders), or the whole brain. Percentiles or mean values were mostly used to quantify E-fields. Our modeling study, which involved 1,000 E-field models and > 1,000,000 extracted E-field values, revealed that different outcome measures yielded distinct E-field values, analyzed different brain regions, and did not always exhibit strong correlations in the same within-subject E-field model. Conclusions: Outcome measure selection significantly impacts the locations and intensities of extracted E-field data in both tES and TMS E-field models. The suitability of different outcome measures depends on the target region, TMS/tES modality, individual anatomy, the analyzed E-field component and the research question. To enhance the quality, rigor, and reproducibility in the E-field modeling domain, we suggest standard reporting practices across studies and provide four recommendations.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192300530XElectric field (E-field) modelingTranscranial electrical stimulation (tES)Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)Finite element method (FEM)Region of interest (ROI) analysesWhole brain analyses |
| spellingShingle | Sybren Van Hoornweder Marten Nuyts Joana Frieske Stefanie Verstraelen Raf L.J. Meesen Kevin A. Caulfield Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study NeuroImage Electric field (E-field) modeling Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) Finite element method (FEM) Region of interest (ROI) analyses Whole brain analyses |
| title | Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study |
| title_full | Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study |
| title_fullStr | Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study |
| title_short | Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study |
| title_sort | outcome measures for electric field modeling in tes and tms a systematic review and large scale modeling study |
| topic | Electric field (E-field) modeling Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) Finite element method (FEM) Region of interest (ROI) analyses Whole brain analyses |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192300530X |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sybrenvanhoornweder outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy AT martennuyts outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy AT joanafrieske outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy AT stefanieverstraelen outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy AT rafljmeesen outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy AT kevinacaulfield outcomemeasuresforelectricfieldmodelingintesandtmsasystematicreviewandlargescalemodelingstudy |