Optimization of focality and direction in dense electrode array transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). (6th May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Guler, Seyhmus; Dannhauer, Moritz; Erem, Burak; Macleod, Rob; Tucker, Don; Turovets, Sergei; Luu, Phan; Erdogmus, Deniz; Brooks, Dana H
• Is Part Of: Journal of neural engineering. Volume 13:Number 3(2016:Jun.)
• Publication Date: 2016-05-06
• Subjects: tDCS -- transcranial direct current stimulation -- optimization -- dense array tDCS -- focality; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Biomedical engineering -- Periodicals; 612.8
• DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/036020
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1741-2560

Abstract

Abstract: Objective. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) aims to alter brain function non-invasively via electrodes placed on the scalp. Conventional tDCS uses two relatively large patch electrodes to deliver electrical current to the brain region of interest (ROI). Recent studies have shown that using dense arrays containing up to 512 smaller electrodes may increase the precision of targeting ROIs. However, this creates a need for methods to determine effective and safe stimulus patterns as the number of degrees of freedom is much higher with such arrays. Several approaches to this problem have appeared in the literature. In this paper, we describe a new method for calculating optimal electrode stimulus patterns for targeted and directional modulation in dense array tDCS which differs in some important aspects with methods reported to date. Approach. We optimize stimulus pattern of dense arrays with fixed electrode placement to maximize the current density in a particular direction in the ROI. We impose a flexible set of safety constraints on the current power in the brain, individual electrode currents, and total injected current, to protect subject safety. The proposed optimization problem is convex and thus efficiently solved using existing optimization software to find unique and globally optimal electrode stimulus patterns. Main results. Solutions for four anatomical ROIs based on a realistic head model are shown as exemplary results. To illustrate the differences between our approach and previously introduced methods, we compare our method with two of the other leading methods in the literature. We also report on extensive simulations that show the effect of the values chosen for each proposed safety constraint bound on the optimized stimulus patterns. Significance. The proposed optimization approach employs volume based ROIs, easily adapts to different sets of safety constraints, and takes negligible time to compute. An in-depth comparison study gives insight into the relationship between different objective criteria and optimized stimulus patterns. In addition, the analysis of the interaction between optimized stimulus patterns and safety constraint bounds suggests that more precise current localization in the ROI, with improved safety criterion, may be achieved by careful selection of the constraint bounds.