Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: A comparison study

Aprinda Indahlastari, Munish Chauhan, Rosalind Sadleir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective. To compare field measure differences in simulations of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generated by variations in finite element (FE) models due to boundary condition specification, use of tissue compartment smoothing filters, and use of free or structured tetrahedral meshes based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Approach. A structural MRI head volume was acquired at 1 mm 3 resolution and segmented into ten tissue compartments. Predicted current densities and electric fields were computed in segmented models using modeling pipelines involving either an in-house (block) or a commercial platform commonly used in previous FE tES studies involving smoothed compartments and free meshing procedures (smooth). The same boundary conditions were used for both block and smooth pipelines. Differences caused by varying boundary conditions were examined using a simple geometry. Percentage differences of median current density values in five cortical structures were compared between the two pipelines for three electrode montages (F3-right supraorbital, T7-T8 and Cz-Oz). Main results. Use of boundary conditions commonly used in previous tES FE studies produced asymmetric current density profiles in the simple geometry. In head models, median current density differences produced by the two pipelines, using the same boundary conditions, were up to 6% (isotropic) and 18% (anisotropic) in structures targeted by each montage. Tangential electric field measures calculated via either pipeline were within the range of values reported in the literature, when averaged over cortical surface patches. Significance. Apparently equivalent boundary settings may affect predicted current density outcomes and care must be taken in their specification. Smoothing FE model compartments may not be necessary, and directly translated, voxellated tissue boundaries at 1 mm 3 resolution may be sufficient for use in tES FE studies, greatly reducing processing times. The findings here may be used to inform future current density modeling studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number026019
JournalJournal of Neural Engineering
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Current density
Pipelines
Boundary conditions
Head
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic resonance
Tissue
Electric fields
Specifications
Imaging techniques
Electrodes
Geometry
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Processing

Keywords

  • current density
  • electric field
  • finite element simulation
  • tACS
  • tDCS
  • tES

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Cite this

Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models : A comparison study. / Indahlastari, Aprinda; Chauhan, Munish; Sadleir, Rosalind.

In: Journal of Neural Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, 026019, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2028160a6bae4e5caa5851e01a453e5c,
title = "Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: A comparison study",
abstract = "Objective. To compare field measure differences in simulations of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generated by variations in finite element (FE) models due to boundary condition specification, use of tissue compartment smoothing filters, and use of free or structured tetrahedral meshes based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Approach. A structural MRI head volume was acquired at 1 mm 3 resolution and segmented into ten tissue compartments. Predicted current densities and electric fields were computed in segmented models using modeling pipelines involving either an in-house (block) or a commercial platform commonly used in previous FE tES studies involving smoothed compartments and free meshing procedures (smooth). The same boundary conditions were used for both block and smooth pipelines. Differences caused by varying boundary conditions were examined using a simple geometry. Percentage differences of median current density values in five cortical structures were compared between the two pipelines for three electrode montages (F3-right supraorbital, T7-T8 and Cz-Oz). Main results. Use of boundary conditions commonly used in previous tES FE studies produced asymmetric current density profiles in the simple geometry. In head models, median current density differences produced by the two pipelines, using the same boundary conditions, were up to 6{\%} (isotropic) and 18{\%} (anisotropic) in structures targeted by each montage. Tangential electric field measures calculated via either pipeline were within the range of values reported in the literature, when averaged over cortical surface patches. Significance. Apparently equivalent boundary settings may affect predicted current density outcomes and care must be taken in their specification. Smoothing FE model compartments may not be necessary, and directly translated, voxellated tissue boundaries at 1 mm 3 resolution may be sufficient for use in tES FE studies, greatly reducing processing times. The findings here may be used to inform future current density modeling studies.",
keywords = "current density, electric field, finite element simulation, tACS, tDCS, tES",
author = "Aprinda Indahlastari and Munish Chauhan and Rosalind Sadleir",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1088/1741-2552/aafbbd",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
journal = "Journal of Neural Engineering",
issn = "1741-2560",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models

T2 - A comparison study

AU - Indahlastari, Aprinda

AU - Chauhan, Munish

AU - Sadleir, Rosalind

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective. To compare field measure differences in simulations of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generated by variations in finite element (FE) models due to boundary condition specification, use of tissue compartment smoothing filters, and use of free or structured tetrahedral meshes based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Approach. A structural MRI head volume was acquired at 1 mm 3 resolution and segmented into ten tissue compartments. Predicted current densities and electric fields were computed in segmented models using modeling pipelines involving either an in-house (block) or a commercial platform commonly used in previous FE tES studies involving smoothed compartments and free meshing procedures (smooth). The same boundary conditions were used for both block and smooth pipelines. Differences caused by varying boundary conditions were examined using a simple geometry. Percentage differences of median current density values in five cortical structures were compared between the two pipelines for three electrode montages (F3-right supraorbital, T7-T8 and Cz-Oz). Main results. Use of boundary conditions commonly used in previous tES FE studies produced asymmetric current density profiles in the simple geometry. In head models, median current density differences produced by the two pipelines, using the same boundary conditions, were up to 6% (isotropic) and 18% (anisotropic) in structures targeted by each montage. Tangential electric field measures calculated via either pipeline were within the range of values reported in the literature, when averaged over cortical surface patches. Significance. Apparently equivalent boundary settings may affect predicted current density outcomes and care must be taken in their specification. Smoothing FE model compartments may not be necessary, and directly translated, voxellated tissue boundaries at 1 mm 3 resolution may be sufficient for use in tES FE studies, greatly reducing processing times. The findings here may be used to inform future current density modeling studies.

AB - Objective. To compare field measure differences in simulations of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generated by variations in finite element (FE) models due to boundary condition specification, use of tissue compartment smoothing filters, and use of free or structured tetrahedral meshes based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Approach. A structural MRI head volume was acquired at 1 mm 3 resolution and segmented into ten tissue compartments. Predicted current densities and electric fields were computed in segmented models using modeling pipelines involving either an in-house (block) or a commercial platform commonly used in previous FE tES studies involving smoothed compartments and free meshing procedures (smooth). The same boundary conditions were used for both block and smooth pipelines. Differences caused by varying boundary conditions were examined using a simple geometry. Percentage differences of median current density values in five cortical structures were compared between the two pipelines for three electrode montages (F3-right supraorbital, T7-T8 and Cz-Oz). Main results. Use of boundary conditions commonly used in previous tES FE studies produced asymmetric current density profiles in the simple geometry. In head models, median current density differences produced by the two pipelines, using the same boundary conditions, were up to 6% (isotropic) and 18% (anisotropic) in structures targeted by each montage. Tangential electric field measures calculated via either pipeline were within the range of values reported in the literature, when averaged over cortical surface patches. Significance. Apparently equivalent boundary settings may affect predicted current density outcomes and care must be taken in their specification. Smoothing FE model compartments may not be necessary, and directly translated, voxellated tissue boundaries at 1 mm 3 resolution may be sufficient for use in tES FE studies, greatly reducing processing times. The findings here may be used to inform future current density modeling studies.

KW - current density

KW - electric field

KW - finite element simulation

KW - tACS

KW - tDCS

KW - tES

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062831986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062831986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/1741-2552/aafbbd

DO - 10.1088/1741-2552/aafbbd

M3 - Article

VL - 16

JO - Journal of Neural Engineering

JF - Journal of Neural Engineering

SN - 1741-2560

IS - 2

M1 - 026019

ER -