Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation for treating depression: A modeling study

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Towards precise brain stimulation: Is electric field simulation related to neuromodulation?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Distilling the essence of TMS-evoked EEG potentials (TEPs): A call for securing mechanistic specificity and experimental rigor

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. A modality-adaptive method for segmenting brain tumors and organs-at-risk in radiation therapy planning

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. The stray magnetic fields in Magnetic Resonance Current Density Imaging (MRCDI)

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. A principled approach to conductivity uncertainty analysis in electric field calculations

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) above the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) has been widely used to improve symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the effects of different stimulation protocols in the entire frontal lobe have not been investigated in a large sample including patient data.

METHODS: We used 38 head models created from structural magnetic resonance imaging data of 19 healthy adults and 19 MDD patients and applied computational modeling to simulate the spatial distribution of tDCS-induced electric fields (EFs) in 20 frontal regions. We evaluated effects of seven bipolar and two multi-electrode 4 × 1 tDCS protocols.

RESULTS: For bipolar montages, EFs were of comparable strength in the lDLPFC and in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). Depending on stimulation parameters, EF cortical maps varied to a considerable degree, but were found to be similar in controls and patients. 4 × 1 montages produced more localized, albeit weaker effects.

LIMITATIONS: White matter anisotropy was not modeled. The relationship between EF strength and clinical response to tDCS could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS: In addition to lDLPFC stimulation, excitability changes in the MPFC should also be considered as a potential mechanism underlying clinical efficacy of bipolar montages. MDD-associated anatomical variations are not likely to substantially influence current flow. Individual modeling of tDCS protocols can substantially improve cortical targeting. We make recommendations for future research to explicitly test the contribution of lDLPFC vs. MPFC stimulation to therapeutic outcomes of tDCS in this disorder.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Affective Disorders
Volume234
Pages (from-to)164-173
Number of pages10
ISSN0165-0327
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2018

    Research areas

  • Journal Article

ID: 53548038