Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/41749
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVAN HOORNWEDER, Sybren-
dc.contributor.authorNUYTS, Marten-
dc.contributor.authorFRIESKE, Joana-
dc.contributor.authorVERSTRAELEN, Stefanie-
dc.contributor.authorMEESEN, Raf-
dc.contributor.authorCaulfield, Kevin A.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-13T10:20:58Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-13T10:20:58Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.date.submitted2023-11-13T10:09:35Z-
dc.identifier.citationNEUROIMAGE, 281 (Art N° 120379)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/41749-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to estimate the amount of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) that reaches the cortex and to address the variable behavioral effects observed in the field. However, outcome measures used to quantify E-fields vary considerably and a thorough comparison is missing.Objectives: This two-part study aimed to examine the different outcome measures used to report on tES and TMS induced E-fields, including volume-and surface-level gray matter, region of interest (ROI), whole brain, geometrical, structural, and percentile-based approaches. The study aimed to guide future research in informed selection of appropriate outcome measures.Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies quantifying E-fields. The identified outcome measures were compared across volume-and surface-level E-field data in ten tES and TMS modalities targeting two common targets in 100 healthy individuals.Results: In the systematic review, we extracted 308 outcome measures from 202 studies that adopted either a gray matter volume-level (n = 197) or surface-level (n = 111) approach. Volume-level results focused on E-field magnitude, while surface-level data encompassed E-field magnitude (n = 64) and normal/tangential E-field components (n = 47). E-fields were extracted in ROIs, such as brain structures and shapes (spheres, hexahedra and cylinders), or the whole brain. Percentiles or mean values were mostly used to quantify E-fields. Our modeling study, which involved 1,000 E-field models and > 1,000,000 extracted E-field values, revealed that different outcome measures yielded distinct E-field values, analyzed different brain regions, and did not always exhibit strong correlations in the same within-subject E-field model.Conclusions: Outcome measure selection significantly impacts the locations and intensities of extracted E-field data in both tES and TMS E-field models. The suitability of different outcome measures depends on the target region, TMS/tES modality, individual anatomy, the analyzed E-field component and the research question. To enhance the quality, rigor, and reproducibility in the E-field modeling domain, we suggest standard reporting practices across studies and provide four recommendations.-
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Special Research Fund (BOF) of Hasselt University (BOF20KP18) (RM), Research Foundation Flanders (G1129923N) (SVH) an NIH NINDS F31 NRSA grant (F31NS126019) (KAC). Data were provided by the Human Connectome Project, WUMinn Consortium (Principal Investigators: David Van Essen and Kamil Ugurbil; 1U54MH091657) funded by the 16 NIH Institutes and Centers that support the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research; and by the McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE-
dc.rights2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).-
dc.subject.otherElectric field (E -field) modeling-
dc.subject.otherTranscranial electrical stimulation (tES)-
dc.subject.otherTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-
dc.subject.otherFinite element method (FEM)-
dc.subject.otherRegion of interest (ROI) analyses-
dc.subject.otherWhole brain analyses-
dc.titleOutcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study-
dc.typeJournal Contribution-
dc.identifier.volume281-
local.format.pages26-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatA1-
dc.description.notesVan Hoornweder, S (corresponding author), Hasselt Univ, Fac Rehabil Sci & Physiotherapy, Agoralaan Bldg A, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.; Caulfield, KA (corresponding author), Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Psychiat, 67 President St, Charleston, SC 29425 USA.-
dc.description.notessybren.vanhoornweder@uhasselt.be; caulfiel@musc.edu-
local.publisher.place525 B ST, STE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4495 USA-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedReview-
local.bibliographicCitation.artnr120379-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120379-
dc.identifier.pmid37716590-
dc.identifier.isi001085016300001-
dc.contributor.orcidNuyts, Marten/0000-0002-7687-9897; Van Hoornweder,-
dc.contributor.orcidSybren/0000-0002-0325-8950; Caulfield, Kevin/0000-0001-8268-4204;-
dc.contributor.orcidVerstraelen, Stefanie/0000-0003-4378-7168-
local.provider.typewosris-
local.description.affiliation[Van Hoornweder, Sybren; Nuyts, Marten; Frieske, Joana; Verstraelen, Stefanie; Meesen, Raf L. J.] Univ Hasselt, Fac Rehabil Sci, Rehabil Res Ctr, REVAL, Diepenbeek, Belgium.-
local.description.affiliation[Frieske, Joana; Meesen, Raf L. J.] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Movement Sci, Movement Control & Neuroplast Res Grp, Grp Biomed Sci, Leuven, Belgium.-
local.description.affiliation[Caulfield, Kevin A.] Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Psychiat, Brain Stimulat Lab, Charleston, SC USA.-
local.description.affiliation[Van Hoornweder, Sybren] Hasselt Univ, Fac Rehabil Sci & Physiotherapy, Agoralaan Bldg A, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.-
local.description.affiliation[Caulfield, Kevin A.] Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Psychiat, 67 President St, Charleston, SC 29425 USA.-
local.uhasselt.internationalyes-
item.fullcitationVAN HOORNWEDER, Sybren; NUYTS, Marten; FRIESKE, Joana; VERSTRAELEN, Stefanie; MEESEN, Raf & Caulfield, Kevin A. (2023) Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS: A systematic review and large-scale modeling study. In: NEUROIMAGE, 281 (Art N° 120379).-
item.contributorVAN HOORNWEDER, Sybren-
item.contributorNUYTS, Marten-
item.contributorFRIESKE, Joana-
item.contributorVERSTRAELEN, Stefanie-
item.contributorMEESEN, Raf-
item.contributorCaulfield, Kevin A.-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.journal.issn1053-8119-
crisitem.journal.eissn1095-9572-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Outcome measures for electric field modeling in tES and TMS_ A systematic review and large-scale modeling study.pdfPublished version20.84 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

3
checked on May 8, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.