TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of spherical and realistically shaped boundary element head models for transcranial magnetic stimulation navigation
AU - Nummenmaa, Aapo
AU - Stenroos, Matti
AU - Ilmoniemi, Risto J.
AU - Okada, Yoshio C.
AU - Hämäläinen, Matti S.
AU - Raij, Tommi
N1 - Funding Information:
This work has been supported by Academy of Finland project number 127624 (AN), decision number 252223 (RJI), National Institutes of health (NIH) grants R01-NS048279 , R01-NS037462 , R01-HD040712 , R01-MH083744 , and R21-DC010060 (TR), NIBIB R01-EB009048 (MSH), NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant S10-RR024794 , Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (Harvard Catalyst; NCRR-NIH UL1-RR025758), and The NIH Center for Functional Neuroimaging Technologies (CFNT) NIBIB P41-EB015896. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CFNT, NCRR, or NIH.
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - Objective: MRI-guided real-time transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) navigators that apply electromagnetic modeling have improved the utility of TMS. However, their accuracy and speed depends on the assumed volume conductor geometry. Spherical models found in present navigators are computationally fast but may be inaccurate in some areas. Realistically shaped boundary-element models (BEMs) could increase accuracy at a moderate computational cost, but it is unknown which model features have the largest influence on accuracy. Thus, we compared different types of spherical models and BEMs. Methods: Globally and locally fitted spherical models and different BEMs with either one or three compartments and with different skull-to-brain conductivity ratios (1/1-1/80) were compared against a reference BEM. Results: The one-compartment BEM at inner skull surface was almost as accurate as the reference BEM. Skull/brain conductivity ratio in the range 1/10-1/80 had only a minor influence. BEMs were superior to spherical models especially in frontal and temporal areas (up to 20. mm localization and 40% intensity improvement); in motor cortex all models provided similar results. Conclusions: One-compartment BEMs offer a good balance between accuracy and computational cost. Significance: Realistically shaped BEMs may increase TMS navigation accuracy in several brain areas, such as in prefrontal regions often targeted in clinical applications.
AB - Objective: MRI-guided real-time transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) navigators that apply electromagnetic modeling have improved the utility of TMS. However, their accuracy and speed depends on the assumed volume conductor geometry. Spherical models found in present navigators are computationally fast but may be inaccurate in some areas. Realistically shaped boundary-element models (BEMs) could increase accuracy at a moderate computational cost, but it is unknown which model features have the largest influence on accuracy. Thus, we compared different types of spherical models and BEMs. Methods: Globally and locally fitted spherical models and different BEMs with either one or three compartments and with different skull-to-brain conductivity ratios (1/1-1/80) were compared against a reference BEM. Results: The one-compartment BEM at inner skull surface was almost as accurate as the reference BEM. Skull/brain conductivity ratio in the range 1/10-1/80 had only a minor influence. BEMs were superior to spherical models especially in frontal and temporal areas (up to 20. mm localization and 40% intensity improvement); in motor cortex all models provided similar results. Conclusions: One-compartment BEMs offer a good balance between accuracy and computational cost. Significance: Realistically shaped BEMs may increase TMS navigation accuracy in several brain areas, such as in prefrontal regions often targeted in clinical applications.
KW - Boundary element method
KW - Electromagnetic modeling
KW - Image guided navigation
KW - Transcranial magnetic stimulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883052008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883052008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.019
DO - 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 23890512
AN - SCOPUS:84883052008
SN - 1388-2457
VL - 124
SP - 1995
EP - 2007
JO - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control
JF - Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology - Electromyography and Motor Control
IS - 10
ER -