↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the cortical regions involved in MEP modulation in tDCS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating the cortical regions involved in MEP modulation in tDCS
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Salvador, Cornelia Wenger, Pedro C. Miranda

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used in several studies to evaluate cortical excitability changes induced by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex. Interpretation of these results, however, is hindered by the very different spatial distribution of the electric field (E-field) induced by the two techniques and by the different target neurons that they might act upon. In this study we used the finite element method to calculate the E-field distribution induced by TMS and tDCS in a realistically shaped model of a human head. A model of a commercially available figure-8 coil was placed over a position above the identified hand knob (HK) region. We also modeled two configurations of bipolar tDCS montages with one of the electrodes placed over the HK and a return electrode over the contralateral orbital region. The electrodes over the HK were either rectangular in shape, with an area of 35 cm(2) or cylindrical with an area of π cm(2) (1 cm radius). To compare the E-field distribution in TMS and the two tDCS models, average values of the E-field's magnitude as well as the polar and azimuthal angle were investigated in the HK region and premotor areas. The results show that both techniques induce fields with different magnitudes and directions in the HK: the field in tDCS is predominantly perpendicular to the cortical surface, contrary to what happens in TMS where the field is mostly parallel to it. In the premotor areas, the magnitude of the E-field induced in TMS was well below the accepted threshold for MEP generation, 100 V/m. In tDCS, the magnitude of the field in these areas was comparable to that induced at the HK with a significant component perpendicular to the cortical surface. These results indicate that tDCS and TMS target preferentially different neuronal structures at the HK. Besides, they show that premotor areas may play a role in the tDCS-induced after effects on motor cortex excitability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 25%
Engineering 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Psychology 4 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,826,358
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,396
of 4,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,273
of 279,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#67
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.