Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
J Neural Eng. 2019 Apr;16(2):026019. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aafbbd. Epub 2019 Jan 3.
To compare field measure differences in simulations of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) generated by variations in finite element (FE) models due to boundary condition specification, use of tissue compartment smoothing filters, and use of free or structured tetrahedral meshes based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.
A structural MRI head volume was acquired at 1 mm resolution and segmented into ten tissue compartments. Predicted current densities and electric fields were computed in segmented models using modeling pipelines involving either an in-house (block) or a commercial platform commonly used in previous FE tES studies involving smoothed compartments and free meshing procedures (smooth). The same boundary conditions were used for both block and smooth pipelines. Differences caused by varying boundary conditions were examined using a simple geometry. Percentage differences of median current density values in five cortical structures were compared between the two pipelines for three electrode montages (F3-right supraorbital, T7-T8 and Cz-Oz).
Use of boundary conditions commonly used in previous tES FE studies produced asymmetric current density profiles in the simple geometry. In head models, median current density differences produced by the two pipelines, using the same boundary conditions, were up to 6% (isotropic) and 18% (anisotropic) in structures targeted by each montage. Tangential electric field measures calculated via either pipeline were within the range of values reported in the literature, when averaged over cortical surface patches.
Apparently equivalent boundary settings may affect predicted current density outcomes and care must be taken in their specification. Smoothing FE model compartments may not be necessary, and directly translated, voxellated tissue boundaries at 1 mm resolution may be sufficient for use in tES FE studies, greatly reducing processing times. The findings here may be used to inform future current density modeling studies.
比较由于边界条件指定、使用组织分区平滑滤波器以及根据磁共振成像 (MRI) 数据使用自由或结构四面体网格而在有限元 (FE) 模型的经颅电刺激 (tES) 模拟中产生的场测量差异。
以 1mm 分辨率采集结构 MRI 头部体积,并将其分割成十个组织分区。使用涉及内部(块)或商业平台的建模管道在分割模型中计算预测电流密度和电场,这些平台常用于涉及平滑分区和自由网格程序的先前 FE tES 研究(平滑)。块和平滑管道都使用相同的边界条件。使用简单几何形状检查因边界条件变化引起的差异。对于三种电极排列(F3-右眶上、T7-T8 和 Cz-Oz),比较了两种管道在五个皮质结构中的中值电流密度值的百分比差异。
使用先前 tES FE 研究中常用的边界条件在简单几何形状中产生了不对称的电流密度分布。在头部模型中,两种管道使用相同边界条件产生的中值电流密度差异在每个电极排列的目标结构中高达 6%(各向同性)和 18%(各向异性)。通过任一线程计算的切向电场测量值,在平均皮质表面斑块时,都在文献中报道的范围内。
明显等效的边界设置可能会影响预测的电流密度结果,因此在指定边界设置时必须小心。FE 模型分区平滑可能不是必需的,并且直接转换为 1mm 分辨率的体素化组织边界可能足以用于 tES FE 研究,从而大大减少处理时间。此处的发现可用于告知未来的电流密度建模研究。