Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
Do you wish to request the book?
Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Group and individual level variations between symmetric and asymmetric DLPFC montages for tDCS over large scale brain network nodes
2021
Overview
Two challenges to optimizing transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are selecting between, often similar, electrode montages and accounting for inter-individual differences in response. These two factors are related by how tDCS montage determines current flow through the brain considered across or within individuals. MRI-based computational head models (CHMs) predict how brain anatomy determines electric field (EF) patterns for a given tDCS montage. Because conventional tDCS produces diffuse brain current flow, stimulation outcomes may be understood as modulation of global networks. Therefore, we developed a network-led, rather than region-led, approach. We specifically considered two common “frontal” tDCS montages that nominally target the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; asymmetric “unilateral” (anode/cathode: F4/Fp1) and symmetric “bilateral” (F4/F3) electrode montages. CHMs of 66 participants were constructed. We showed that cathode location significantly affects EFs in the limbic network. Furthermore, using a finer parcellation of large-scale networks, we found significant differences in some of the main nodes within a network, even if there is no difference at the network level. This study generally demonstrates a methodology for considering the components of large-scale networks in CHMs instead of targeting a single region and specifically provides insight into how symmetric vs asymmetric frontal tDCS may differentially modulate networks across a population.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
