55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation—ROAST—a fully automated open-source pipeline

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective.

          Research in the area of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) often relies on computational models of current flow in the brain. Models are built based on magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the human head to capture detailed individual anatomy. To simulate current flow on an individual, the subject’s MRI is segmented, virtual electrodes are placed on this anatomical model, the volume is tessellated into a mesh, and a finite element model (FEM) is solved numerically to estimate the current flow. Various software tools are available for each of these steps, as well as processing pipelines that connect these tools for automated or semi-automated processing. The goal of the present tool—realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric simulation (ROAST)—is to provide an end-to-end pipeline that can automatically process individual heads with realistic volumetric anatomy leveraging open-source software and custom scripts to improve segmentation and execute electrode placement.

          Approach.

          ROAST combines the segmentation algorithm of SPM12, a Matlab script for touch-up and automatic electrode placement, the finite element mesher iso2mesh and the solver getDP. We compared its performance with commercial FEM software, and SimNIBS, a well-established open-source modeling pipeline.

          Main results.

          The electric fields estimated with ROAST differ little from the results obtained with commercial meshing and FEM solving software. We also do not find large differences between the various automated segmentation methods used by ROAST and SimNIBS. We do find bigger differences when volumetric segmentation are converted into surfaces in SimNIBS. However, evaluation on intracranial recordings from human subjects suggests that ROAST and SimNIBS are not significantly different in predicting field distribution, provided that users have detailed knowledge of SimNIBS.

          Significance.

          We hope that the detailed comparisons presented here of various choices in this modeling pipeline can provide guidance for future tool development. We released ROAST as an open-source, easy-to-install and fully-automated pipeline for individualized TES modeling.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Construction of a 3D probabilistic atlas of human cortical structures.

          We describe the construction of a digital brain atlas composed of data from manually delineated MRI data. A total of 56 structures were labeled in MRI of 40 healthy, normal volunteers. This labeling was performed according to a set of protocols developed for this project. Pairs of raters were assigned to each structure and trained on the protocol for that structure. Each rater pair was tested for concordance on 6 of the 40 brains; once they had achieved reliability standards, they divided the task of delineating the remaining 34 brains. The data were then spatially normalized to well-known templates using 3 popular algorithms: AIR5.2.5's nonlinear warp (Woods et al., 1998) paired with the ICBM452 Warp 5 atlas (Rex et al., 2003), FSL's FLIRT (Smith et al., 2004) was paired with its own template, a skull-stripped version of the ICBM152 T1 average; and SPM5's unified segmentation method (Ashburner and Friston, 2005) was paired with its canonical brain, the whole head ICBM152 T1 average. We thus produced 3 variants of our atlas, where each was constructed from 40 representative samples of a data processing stream that one might use for analysis. For each normalization algorithm, the individual structure delineations were then resampled according to the computed transformations. We next computed averages at each voxel location to estimate the probability of that voxel belonging to each of the 56 structures. Each version of the atlas contains, for every voxel, probability densities for each region, thus providing a resource for automated probabilistic labeling of external data types registered into standard spaces; we also computed average intensity images and tissue density maps based on the three methods and target spaces. These atlases will serve as a resource for diverse applications including meta-analysis of functional and structural imaging data and other bioinformatics applications where display of arbitrary labels in probabilistically defined anatomic space will facilitate both knowledge-based development and visualization of findings from multiple disciplines.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target.

            Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides a non-invasive tool to elicit neuromodulation by delivering current through electrodes placed on the scalp. The present clinical paradigm uses two relatively large electrodes to inject current through the head resulting in electric fields that are broadly distributed over large regions of the brain. In this paper, we present a method that uses multiple small electrodes (i.e. 1.2 cm diameter) and systematically optimize the applied currents to achieve effective and targeted stimulation while ensuring safety of stimulation. We found a fundamental trade-off between achievable intensity (at the target) and focality, and algorithms to optimize both measures are presented. When compared with large pad-electrodes (approximated here by a set of small electrodes covering 25 cm(2)), the proposed approach achieves electric fields which exhibit simultaneously greater focality (80% improvement) and higher target intensity (98% improvement) at cortical targets using the same total current applied. These improvements illustrate the previously unrecognized and non-trivial dependence of the optimal electrode configuration on the desired electric field orientation and the maximum total current (due to safety). Similarly, by exploiting idiosyncratic details of brain anatomy, the optimization approach significantly improves upon prior un-optimized approaches using small electrodes. The analysis also reveals the optimal use of conventional bipolar montages: maximally intense tangential fields are attained with the two electrodes placed at a considerable distance from the target along the direction of the desired field; when radial fields are desired, the maximum-intensity configuration consists of an electrode placed directly over the target with a distant return electrode. To summarize, if a target location and stimulation orientation can be defined by the clinician, then the proposed technique is superior in terms of both focality and intensity as compared to previous solutions and is thus expected to translate into improved patient safety and increased clinical efficacy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Inter-Individual Variation during Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Normalization of Dose Using MRI-Derived Computational Models

              Background: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, versatile, and safe neuromodulation technology under investigation for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, adjunct to rehabilitation, and cognitive enhancement in healthy adults. Despite promising results, there is variability in responsiveness. One potential source of variability is the intensity of current delivered to the brain which is a function of both the operator controlled tDCS dose (electrode montage and total applied current) and subject specific anatomy. We are interested in both the scale of this variability across anatomical typical adults and methods to normalize inter-individual variation by customizing tDCS dose. Computational FEM simulations are a standard technique to predict brain current flow during tDCS and can be based on subject specific anatomical MRI. Objective: To investigate this variability, we modeled multiple tDCS montages across three adults (ages 34–41, one female). Results: Conventional pad stimulation led to diffuse modulation with maximum current flow between the pads across all subjects. There was high current flow directly under the pad for one subject while the location of peak induced cortical current flow was variable. The High-Definition tDCS montage led to current flow restricted to within the ring perimeter across all subjects. The current flow profile across all subjects and montages was influenced by details in cortical gyri/sulci. Conclusion: This data suggests that subject specific modeling can facilitate consistent and more efficacious tDCS.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101217933
                32339
                J Neural Eng
                J Neural Eng
                Journal of neural engineering
                1741-2560
                1741-2552
                11 June 2020
                30 July 2019
                30 July 2019
                30 July 2020
                : 16
                : 5
                : 056006
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, City College of the City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, United States of America
                [2 ]Research & Development, Soterix Medical Inc., New York, NY 10001, United States of America
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4178-0739
                Article
                NIHMS1602028
                10.1088/1741-2552/ab208d
                7328433
                31071686
                950cbd4d-6c15-44e2-9855-c9b0a4a6cd62

                Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                transcranial electrical stimulation,brain segmentation,finite element method,current-flow model

                Comments

                Comment on this article