Dataset Information

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Optimization - From Physics-Based Computer Simulations to High-Fidelity Head Phantom Fabrication and Measurements.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates neural networks. Computer simulations, while used to identify how currents behave within tissues of different conductivity properties, still need to be complemented by physical models.

Objective/hypothesis

To better understand tDCS effects on biology-mimicking tissues by developing and testing the feasibility of a high-fidelity 3D head phantom model that has sensing capabilities at different compartmental levels.

Methods

Models obtained from MRI images generated 3D printed molds. Agar phantoms were fabricated, and 18 monitoring electrodes were placed on specific phantom brain areas.

Results

When using rectangular electrodes, the measured and simulated voltages at the monitoring electrodes agreed reasonably well, except at excitation locations. The electric field distribution in different phantom layers appeared better confined with circular electrodes compared to rectangular electrodes.

Conclusion

The high-fidelity 3D head model was found to be feasible and comparable with computer-based electrical simulations, with high correlation between simulated and measured brain voltages. This feasibility study supports testing to further assess the reliability of this model.

SUBMITTER: Morales-Quezada L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6837166 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Optimization - From Physics-Based Computer Simulations to High-Fidelity Head Phantom Fabrication and Measurements.

Morales-Quezada Leon L El-Hagrassy Mirret M MM Costa Beatriz B McKinley R Andy RA Lv Pengcheng P Fregni Felipe F

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20191031

<h4>Background</h4>Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates neural networks. Computer simulations, while used to identify how currents behave within tissues of different conductivity properties, still need to be complemented by physical models.<h4>Objective/hypothesis</h4>To better understand tDCS effects on biology-mimicking tissues by developing and testing the feasibility of a high-fidelity 3D head phantom model that has sensing capabilities at different compartmental levels.< ...[more]

PMID: 31736732

Similar Datasets

Project description:The purpose of this study was to verify the dosimetric performance of Acuros XB (AXB), a grid-based Boltzmann solver, in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom was used for all calculations and measurements in this study. Clinically equivalent IMRT and VMAT plans were created on the RPC H&N phantom in the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 10.0) by using RPC dose prescription specifications. The dose distributions were calculated with two different algorithms, AXB 11.0.03 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 10.0.24. Two dose report modes of AXB were recorded: dose-to-medium in medium (D(m,m)) and dose-to-water in medium (D(w,m)). Each treatment plan was delivered to the RPC phantom three times for reproducibility by using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator. Absolute point dose and planar dose were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic® EBT2 film, respectively. Profile comparison and 2D gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between the film measurements and the calculated dose distributions from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.Good agreement was observed between measured doses and those calculated with AAA or AXB. Both AAA and AXB calculated doses within 5% of TLD measurements in both the IMRT and VMAT plans. Results of AXB_D(m,m) (0.1% to 3.6%) were slightly better than AAA (0.2% to 4.6%) or AXB_D(w,m) (0.3% to 5.1%). The gamma analysis for both AAA and AXB met the RPC 7%/4 mm criteria (over 90% passed), whereas AXB_D(m,m) met 5%/3 mm criteria in most cases. AAA was 2 to 3 times faster than AXB for IMRT, whereas AXB was 4-6 times faster than AAA for VMAT.AXB was found to be satisfactorily accurate when compared to measurements in the RPC H&N phantom. Compared with AAA, AXB results were equal to or better than those obtained with film measurements for IMRT and VMAT plans. The AXB_D(m,m) reporting mode was found to be closer to TLD and film measurements than was the AXB_D(w,m) mode. AXB calculation time was found to be significantly shorter (× 4) than AAA for VMAT.

Dataset Information

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Optimization - From Physics-Based Computer Simulations to High-Fidelity Head Phantom Fabrication and Measurements.

Background

Objective/hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Optimization - From Physics-Based Computer Simulations to High-Fidelity Head Phantom Fabrication and Measurements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure