A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
* These authors contributed equally
This protocol describes the method of neuronavigated electrode placement for focal, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) administered during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modulation of the excitability and plasticity of the human brain. Focalized tDCS setups use specific electrode arrangements to constrain the current flow to circumscribed brain regions. However, the effectiveness of focalized tDCS can be compromised by electrode positioning errors on the scalp, resulting in significant reductions of the current dose reaching the target brain regions for tDCS. Electrode placement guided by neuronavigation based on the individual's head and brain anatomy derived from structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data may be suited to improve positioning accuracy.
This protocol describes the method of neuronavigated electrode placement for a focalized tDCS setup, which is suitable for concurrent administration during functional MRI (fMRI). We also quantify the accuracy of electrode placement and investigate electrode drift in a concurrent tDCS-fMRI experiment. Critical steps involve the optimization of electrode positions based on current modeling that considers the individual's head and brain anatomy, the implementation of neuronavigated electrode placement on the scalp, and the administration of optimized and focal tDCS during fMRI.
The regional precision of electrode placement is quantified using the Euclidean norm (L2 Norm) to determine deviations of the actual from the intended electrode positions during a concurrent tDCS-fMRI study. Any potential displacement of electrodes (drift) during the experiment is investigated by comparing actual electrode positions before and after the fMRI acquisition. In addition, we directly compare the placement accuracy of neuronavigated tDCS to that achieved by a scalp-based targeting approach (a 10-20 Electroencephalography (EEG) system). These analyses demonstrate superior placement accuracy for neuronavigation compared to scalp-based electrode placement and negligible electrode drift across a 20 min scanning period.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that allows the modification of cognition and physiological brain functions in experimental and clinical contexts1,2,3. Acute administration of tDCS can have transient changes in neuronal excitability, with the aftereffects lasting from minutes to hours after the stimulation4,5. The applied current does not induce action potentials but rather transiently shifts the resting membrane potential of the neuron toward either de- or hyperpolarization, resulting in either increased or decreased neuronal excitability at the macroscopic level using standard protocols4,5,6. Furthermore, regarding synaptic plasticity effects of tDCS, animal and human studies have shown that tDCS induces long-term potentiation and depression (LTP and LTD)-like processes4,5.
In the motor system, the modulation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) allows direct assessment of neurophysiological effects of tDCS on local cortical excitability7. However, this approach cannot quantify the neural effects of tDCS on higher-order cognitive functions supported by large-scale functional brain networks8. The effects on brain networks can be investigated by combining tDCS with modern functional imaging techniques9,10. Among those, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become the most frequently used approach because it provides excellent spatial and sufficient temporal resolution to reveal the neural mechanisms by which tDCS affects local brain activity at the stimulation site and large-scale neural networks11,12,13,14.
So far, combined fMRI-tDCS studies have mainly employed so-called conventional tDCS setups, which use relatively large rubber electrodes between 25 and 35 cm2 (5 x 5 cm2 and 5 x 7 cm2) inserted into saline-soaked sponge pockets15,16. These setups project the current between two electrodes that are typically attached over (a) a target brain region for tDCS and (b) a return electrode over non-target brain regions or extracranial areas (e.g., the shoulder). This results in widespread current flow across the brain, affecting regions other than the target region, thereby complicating causal assumptions and interpretations about the neural origin of tDCS effects17.
More precise spatial targeting can be achieved by focalized tDCS18. These setups employ arrays of smaller electrodes arranged in close proximity to each other or by using a ring-shaped cathode placed around a center anode to constrain current flow to the target region18,19. Computer simulations of electric current flow suggest that focalized tDCS can result in higher spatial precision of the current flow to the target region than conventional montages20. Moreover, behavioral studies have demonstrated regional and task-specific behavioral modulation using focalized setups19,21,22. However, only a few studies have used focalized tDCS during fMRI. These studies have been able to establish the feasibility of this approach and provided the first evidence for region-specific neural modulation19,23.
However, because of regionally precise current delivery, focalized tDCS setups may be more sensitive to electrode positioning errors on the scalp than conventional montages. For example, Seo et al. demonstrated that positioning errors of 5 mm in a focalized motor cortex setup reduced peak somatic polarization in the hand knob by up to 87%24. Moreover, a recent computational modeling study demonstrated that electrode displacement from intended positions for focal compared to conventional setups resulted in significant current dose reductions in the target regions for tDCS, ranging from 26% to 43%25. Therefore, it was concluded that future studies should routinely include appropriate methods for the improvement of electrode positioning and the verification of electrode positioning before and after fMRI5.
In the present study, we describe the method of neuronavigated electrode positioning for a novel fMRI-compatible focal 3 x 1 tDCS setup (i.e., three individual cathodes that are arranged in a circle around a single center anode), which is currently being used in a collaborative research consortium funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG Research Unit 5429, https://www.memoslap.de). The consortium investigates behavioral and neural effects of focalized tDCS on learning and memory and predictors of stimulation response across four functional domains (i.e., visual-spatial, language, motor, and executive functions). Structural T1- and T2-weighted MRI data of study participants are acquired during a baseline scan. These data are used for individualized current flow simulations26 to determine scalp positions of electrodes that maximize the current flow to the target region in individual study participants. As an example, this protocol will describe neuronavigated targeting of individually determined electrode positions centered over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC) in one participant.
The representative results section is based on structural imaging data acquired before and after concurrent tDCS-fMRI in three subprojects of the Research Unit. These studies targeted the right occipitotemporal cortex (rOTC), left temporo-parietal cortex (lTPC), and rDLPFC. Data were acquired at the Department of Neurology of the University Medicine Greifswald. Using these data, we aimed to achieve two main objectives: (1) To quantify the spatial precision of neuronavigated electrode placement by comparing "intended" versus empirically determined "actual" electrode positions25, and (2) investigate the degree of electrode displacement over the course of the fMRI sessions (i.e., electrode drift). These factors are crucial for improving the accuracy and reliability of tDCS effects in concurrent tDCS-fMRI studies27. In addition, the targeting accuracy of neuronavigated tDCS is compared to that of a scalp-based approach using data from a previous tDCS-fMRI study of our group25.
All experimental procedures presented in this protocol have been reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the University Medicine Greifswald. All participants provided informed consent prior to study inclusion and granted permission for their data to be published anonymously.
1. Screening of contraindications and general considerations
2. Baseline MRI scan and individualized current modeling
3. Neuronavigation
4. tDCS-fMRI
Data from 43 healthy young participants (20 men/23 women, aged 24.74 ± 5.50 years) were included. The participants completed up to four fMRI sessions. Neuronavigated placement of electrodes was conducted prior to each fMRI session. In total, 338 datasets representing the positions of the center anodes before and after fMRI were included in data analyses.
To determine the intended positions of the electrodes, individualized current modeling was performed using structural M...
Critical steps, potential modifications, and troubleshooting of the method
Accurate positioning of electrodes is a crucial technical factor in tDCS experiments, and deviations from intended scalp positions or electrode drift can affect current flow to the intended target brain regions42,43. This is particularly relevant for focalized tDCS, as the regional specificity of the administered current makes these setups particularly susceptible to...
MAN is in the scientific advisory boards of Neuroelectrics and Précis. AH is partially employed by neuroConn GmbH. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (project grants: FL 379/26-1; ME 3161/3-1; CRC INST 276/741-2 and 292/155-1, Research Unit 5429/1 (467143400), FL 379/34-1, FL 379/35-1, Fl 379/37-1, Fl 379/22-1, Fl 379/26-1, ME 3161/5-1, ME 3161/6-1, AN 1103/5-1, TH 1330/6-1, TH 1330/7-1). AT was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation (grant R313-2019-622). We thank Sophie Dabelstein and Kira Hering for their help with data extraction.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Brainsight neuronavigation system | Brainsight; Rogue Research Inc., Montréal, Canada | ||
CR-5 Pro high temp 3D printer | CREALITY, Shenzhen, China | ||
DC-STIMULATOR MC | NeuroConn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany | https://www.neurocaregroup.com/technology/dc-stimulator-mc | |
EMLA Cream 5% | Aspen, Dublin, Ireland | ||
MAGNETOM Vida 3T, syngo_MR_XA50 software | Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany | ||
Polaris camera | Polaris Vicra; Northern Digital Inc., Waterloo, Canada | ||
Ten20 conductive EEG paste | Weaver and Company, Aurora, USA | ||
TPU 3D printer filament | SUNLU International, Hong-Kong, China | ||
Example of alternatives | |||
Ingenia 3.0T (MR-scanner) | Phillips, Amsterdam, Netherlands | ||
Localite TMS Navigator (Neuronavigation equipment) | Localite, Bonn, Germany | ||
Neural Navigator (Neuronavigation equipment) | Soterix, New Jersey, USA | ||
PEBA 3D printer filament | Kimya, Nantes, France | ||
PLA 3D printer filament | Filamentworld, Neu-Ulm, Deutschland | ||
StarStim (Stimulator) | Neuroelectrics, Barcelona, Spain |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved