Applications of open-source software ROAST in clinical studies: A review

Nasimova, Mohigul; Huang, Yu

doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.07.003

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 123 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite adequate design methods, current tDCS research for TBI-related cognitive impairments provides only preliminary insights supporting that tDCS may improve physiologic and behavioral cognitive function after TBI. Importantly, these results support that it is safe, inexpensive, and prudent to further research the use of tDCS for cognition across all TBI acuities and severities using biomarkers including electrical-field modeling (Evans et al, 2020 ; Molero-Chamizo et al, 2021 ; Mizutani-Tiebel et al, 2022 ; Nasimova and Huang, 2022 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Schwertfeger,

Beyer,

Hung

et al. 2023

Front. Neuroergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCognition impairments often occur after a traumatic brain injury and occur at higher rates in military members. Cognitive symptoms impair daily function, including balance and life quality, years after the TBI. Current treatments to regain cognitive function after TBI, including medications and cognitive rehabilitation, have shown limited effectiveness. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a low-cost, non-invasive brain stimulation intervention that improves cognitive function in healthy adults and people with neuropsychologic diagnoses beyond current interventions. Despite the available evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS in improving cognition generally, only two small TBI trials have been conducted based on the most recent systematic review of tDCS effectiveness for cognition following neurological impairment. We found no tDCS studies that addressed TBI-related balance impairments.MethodsA scoping review using a peer-reviewed search of eight databases was completed in July 2022. Two assessors completed a multi-step review and completed data extraction on included studies using a priori items recommended in tDCS and TBI research guidelines.ResultsA total of 399 results were reviewed for inclusion and 12 met the criteria and had data extracted from them by two assessors using Google Forms. Consensus on combined data results included a third assessor when needed. No studies using tDCS for cognition-related balance were found.DiscussionGuidelines and technology measures increase the identification of brain differences that alter tDCS effects on cognition. People with mild-severe and acute-chronic TBI tolerated and benefited from tDCS. TBI-related cognition is understudied, and systematic research that incorporates recommended data elements is needed to advance tDCS interventions to improve cognition after TBI weeks to years after injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Schwertfeger,

Beyer,

Hung

et al. 2023

Front. Neuroergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among NIBS techniques, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) represents a well-tolerated non-pharmacological tool to modulate the membrane potentials of cortical neurons, thus influencing their excitability, spontaneous and evoked firing rates, and activity synchronization ( Nitsche et al, 2008 ). Moreover, both voltage and electric fields generated by tDCS can be accurately simulated through mathematical models and dedicated software ( Nasimova and Huang, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the orbitofrontal cortex reduces delay discounting

Moro,

Saccenti,

Vergallito

et al. 2023

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting (DD) is a quantifiable psychological phenomenon that regulates decision-making. Nevertheless, the neural substrates of DD and its relationship with other cognitive domains are not well understood. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is a potential candidate for supporting the expression of DD, but due to its wide involvement in several psychological functions and neural networks, its central role remains elusive. In this study, healthy subjects underwent transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) while performing an intertemporal choice task for the quantification of DD and a working memory task. To selectively engage the OFC, two electrode configurations have been tested, namely, anodal Fp1–cathodal Fp2 and cathodal Fp1–anodal Fp2. Our results show that stimulation of the OFC reduces DD, independently from electrode configuration. In addition, no relationship was found between DD measures and either working memory performance or baseline impulsivity assessed through established tests. Our work will direct future investigations aimed at unveiling the specific neural mechanisms underlying the involvement of the OFC in DD, and at testing the efficacy of OFC tDCS in reducing DD in psychological conditions where this phenomenon has been strongly implicated, such as addiction and eating disorders.

show abstract

“…In Part 1, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify and describe all the different outcome measures that researchers have used to quantify tES and TMS induced E-field magnitude. While a recent narrative review reported the use of E-field modeling within the scope of a specific software package [35], we sought to systematically report which outcome measures have been used so far across all software packages and populations. In Part 2, to further facilitate the interpretation of previous work and inform future work, we used E-field modeling and examined the most common approaches extracted from the systematic review in a large open-source dataset of 100 healthy adults to elucidate the impact of outcome measure choice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Large-Scale tES and TMS Electric Field Modeling Study Reveals How Outcome Measure Selection Alters Results in a Person- and Montage-Specific Manner

Hoornweder

Nuyts

Frieske

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Electric field (E-field) modeling is a potent tool to examine the cortical effects of transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation (TMS and tES, respectively) and to address the high variability in efficacy observed in the literature. However, outcome measures used to report E-field magnitude vary considerably and have not yet been compared in detail. Objectives: The goal of this two-part study, encompassing a systematic review and modeling experiment, was to provide an overview of the different outcome measures used to report the magnitude of tES and TMS E-fields, and to conduct a direct comparison of these measures across different stimulation montages. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for tES and/or TMS studies reporting E-field magnitude. We extracted and discussed outcome measures in studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Additionally, outcome measures were compared via models of four common tES and two TMS modalities in 100 healthy younger adults. Results: In the systematic review, we included 118 studies using 151 outcome measures related to E-field magnitude. Structural and spherical regions of interest (ROI) analyses and percentile-based whole-brain analyses were used most often. In the modeling analyses, we found that there was an average of only 6% overlap between ROI and percentile-based whole-brain analyses in the investigated volumes within the same person. The overlap between ROI and whole-brain percentiles was montage- and person-specific, with more focal montages such as 4x1 and APPS-tES, and figure-of-eight TMS showing up to 73%, 60%, and 52% overlap between ROI and percentile approaches respectively. However, even in these cases, 27% or more of the analyzed volume still differed between outcome measures in every analyses. Conclusions: The choice of outcome measures meaningfully alters the interpretation of tES and TMS E-field models. Well-considered outcome measure selection is imperative for accurate interpretation of results, valid between-study comparisons, and depends on stimulation focality and study goals. We formulated four recommendations to increase the quality and rigor of E-field modeling outcome measures. With these data and recommendations, we hope to guide future studies towards informed outcome measure selection, and improve the comparability of studies.

show abstract

Applications of open-source software ROAST in clinical studies: A review

Cited by 4 publications

References 123 publications

A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)

A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the orbitofrontal cortex reduces delay discounting

A Systematic Review and Large-Scale tES and TMS Electric Field Modeling Study Reveals How Outcome Measure Selection Alters Results in a Person- and Montage-Specific Manner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About