Customized Application of tDCS for Clinical Rehabilitation in Alzheimer's Disease

Impact of electrode selection on modeling tDCS in the aging brain

Background

Person-specific computational models can estimate transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) current dose delivered to the brain and predict treatment response. Artificially created electrode models derived from virtual 10-20 EEG measurements are typically included in these models as current injection and removal sites. The present study directly compares current flow models generated via artificially placed electrodes ("artificial" electrode models) against those generated using real electrodes acquired from structural MRI scans ("real" electrode models) of older adults.

Methods

A total of 16 individualized head models were derived from cognitively healthy older adults (mean age = 71.8 years) who participated in an in-scanner tDCS study with an F3-F4 montage. Visible tDCS electrodes captured within the MRI scans were segmented to create the "real" electrode model. In contrast, the "artificial" electrodes were generated in ROAST. Percentage differences in current density were computed in selected regions of interest (ROIs) as examples of stimulation targets within an F3-F4 montage.

Main results

We found significant inverse correlations (p < 0.001) between median current density values and brain atrophy in both electrode pipelines with slightly larger correlations found in the artificial pipeline. The percent difference (PD) of the electrode distances between the two models predicted the median current density values computed in the ROIs, gray, and white matter, with significant correlation between electrode distance PDs and current density. The correlation between PD of the contact areas and the computed median current densities in the brain was found to be non-significant.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates potential discrepancies in generated current density models using real versus artificial electrode placement when applying tDCS to an older adult cohort. Our findings strongly suggest that future tDCS clinical work should consider closely monitoring and rigorously documenting electrode location during stimulation to model tDCS montages as closely as possible to actual placement. Detailed physical electrode location data may provide more precise information and thus produce more robust tDCS modeling results.