Petar hi,
great to hear from you, you and I also chatted at BACI in Utrecht.
a few comments to add to Moritz'
- I am not sure I get the distinction between "two fields" and
"two currents" -- currents are proportional to fields, no? The way
I think of it there is only one field and one current at a given
location but it can be convenient to break them down into
components. Even basic circuit solving techniques in lumped
circuits ("mesh current analysis") d this. I suspect I am missing
some sublety in your argument ?
- I think the < TMS -- polarization -- stim> vs <tCS --
current -- modulation> paradigm is, as Moritz says, not so
clear. For example my understanding is that the Parra / Biksom
group has results suggesting that tCS works also by polarizing
along neurons in a way that modulates synaptic plasticity, not
just changing current amplitudes ?
- in any case, as Moritz wrote, we would be happy to carry out
comparisons with you, and if they prove fruitful to possibly link
any alternative approaches you want to contribute with SCIRun /
BrainStimulator as appropriate ?
best,
Dana
On 9/19/17 4:57 PM, Moritz Dannhauer
wrote:
Hi Petar, I remember talking to you at BACI 2015.
From my understanding the
module SimulateForwardMagnetic is ill
suited for TMS. Maybe I am missing
something. I looked before in the example
for brain-stimulation but not really
convinced you are doing it right.
The approach is based upon the work of
Thielscher et al. which ultimately led to the SIMNIBS
toolbox which I validated against.
Also, no such thing as primary
current and secondary current.
Thats not how electricity
works, you can have multiple fields that
lead to 1 current only, though complex in
the case of volume conductance.
You are right in the way that primary and
secondary fields (e.g., Nummenmaa et al., 2013) are the
dominant indicators for the effects for TMS,
however, these fields induce currents in tissue.
I guess my initial thinking of it as currents might be due to
my background which is electrophysiology (+tES)
and magnetoencephalography - I will correct that
in the documentation together with a complete update of the
brain stimulation framework.
Further, in the case of TMS,
you dont care about J but E, unlike tDCS.
Biologically TMS polarizes neurons (most
likely pyramidal cells) directly, while
tDCS changes the intra-cellar properties
through injected currents. Thus TMS is a
stimulator and modulator while tDCS is
only modulator.
I think its fair to say that this is subject to
research.
Further, the claim that "The
computation of secondary currents by solving
the FEM
problem is rather time consuming and
computer simulations have shown that its
impact is
rather small (compared to primary currents)
on the current density J."
Have not checked Js, again cause irrelevant,
but this is simply NOT true for E-fields.
Anything further than 2cm from the hotspot
in fact the secondary field becomes dominant
!
It has been shown that you can excite the WM
directly with TMS that is further/deeper than
the hotspot of figure-8 coils.
Ok, up to now the simulations have not shown that,
which goes along with what has been published in the
literature (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19458407).
I have developed my own TMS modules (1
for generation of geometry via wires and 2nd to
sovle the vector potential using BiotSavart). In
principle instead of wires you can use dipoles
too.
The coil models are modeled by dipoles taken from Thielscher et
al. 2002, 2004.
There I introduce the complete vector
potential from the coil on each node of the mesh,
not sure why you use ROI, you should not IMO. To
derive the RHS for FEM I combine the output of
BuilVolRHS + BuildSurfRHS.
Thats correct and part of a more complete network
simulate TMS I had in SCIRun4 where not all components (e.g.,
BuildSurfRHS) are available in SCIRun5 yet.
I need to dig a bit more, maybe compare
with my results vs yours, then come back to you.
That would be great and I appreciate your help very much to
improve it, thanks!
Best,
Moritz
On Sep 18, 2017, at 6:40 AM, Petar Petrov <pip010@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jess,
From my understanding the module
SimulateForwardMagnetic is ill suited for
TMS. Maybe I am missing something. I
looked before in the example for
brain-stimulation but not really convinced
you are doing it right. Also, no such
thing as primary current and secondary
current. Thats not how electricity works,
you can have multiple fields that lead to
1 current only, though complex in the case
of volume conductance. Further, in the
case of TMS, you dont care about J but E,
unlike tDCS. Biologically TMS polarizes
neurons (most likely pyramidal cells)
directly, while tDCS changes the
intra-cellar properties through injected
currents. Thus TMS is a stimulator and
modulator while tDCS is only modulator.
Further, the claim that "The computation of
secondary currents by solving the FEM
problem is rather time consuming and
computer simulations have shown that its
impact is
rather small (compared to primary currents)
on the current density J."
Have not checked Js, again cause irrelevant,
but this is simply NOT true for E-fields.
Anything further than 2cm from the hotspot
in fact the secondary field becomes dominant
!
It has been shown that you can excite the WM
directly with TMS that is further/deeper than
the hotspot of figure-8 coils.
I have developed my own TMS modules (1 for
generation of geometry via wires and 2nd to sovle
the vector potential using BiotSavart). In
principle instead of wires you can use dipoles
too.
There I introduce the complete vector potential from
the coil on each node of the mesh, not sure why you
use ROI, you should not IMO. To derive the RHS for
FEM I combine the output of BuilVolRHS +
BuildSurfRHS.
I need to dig a bit more, maybe compare with my
results vs yours, then come back to you.
Cheers,
Petar
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:21 AM,
Jess <jess@sci.utah.edu> wrote:
Hi Vikas,
I’m not sure what your question is,
but the TMS example provided will analytically
calculate the magnetic field from a coil (modeled
with dipoles) in the SimulateForwardMagnetic,
then convert them to current sources which are
used as know in the FEM potential calculation.
You can calculate the potentials at detector
positions by extracting the potentials at those
locations. You could generate a type of leadfield
matrix by doing this calculation for a delta
function with all sources and concatenating the
results.
cheers,
Jess
On Sep 8, 2017, at 10:14 PM,
Vikas R bhat <vikasraghubhat@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is
SimulateForwardMagnetic field module
uses variational methods like FEM
(discrete Maxwell equations) to
generate magnetic field from the
known electric field, dipole
positions and detector positions?
--
Thanks,
Vikas.R.Bhat
Contact:
+91 9481263176
________________________________________________
SCIRun users mailing list: scirun-users@sci.utah.edu
http://www.sci.utah.edu/software/scirun.html
To unsubscribe, email sympa@lists.sci.utah.edu
with the "unsubscribe scirun-users" in the
message body.
________________________________________________
SCIRun users mailing list: scirun-users@sci.utah.edu
http://www.sci.utah.edu/software/scirun.html
To unsubscribe, email sympa@lists.sci.utah.edu
with the "unsubscribe scirun-users" in the message
body.
--
All the best,
Petar Petrov
http://ppetrov.net
________________________________________________
SCIRun users mailing list: scirun-users@sci.utah.edu
http://www.sci.utah.edu/software/scirun.html
To unsubscribe, email sympa@lists.sci.utah.edu with the
"unsubscribe scirun-users" in the message body.
________________________________________________
SCIRun users mailing list: scirun-users@sci.utah.edu
http://www.sci.utah.edu/software/scirun.html
To unsubscribe, email sympa@lists.sci.utah.edu with the "unsubscribe scirun-users" in the message body.
|