Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient

Open access
Datta, Abhishek, Baker, Julie M., Bikson, Marom, Fridriksson, Julius·2011·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

While numerous published reports have demonstrated the beneficial effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) upon task performance, fundamental questions remain regarding the optimal electrode configuration on the scalp. Moreover, it is expected that lesioned brain tissue will influence current flow and should therefore be considered (and perhaps leveraged) in the design of individualized tDCS therapies for stroke. The current report demonstrates how different electrode configurations influence the flow of electrical current through brain tissue in a patient who responded positively to a tDCS treatment targeting aphasia (see Baker, Rorden, & Fridriksson, 2010). The patient, a 60-year-old male, sustained a left hemisphere ischemic stroke (lesion size = 87.42 cc) 64-months prior to his participation. Here we present results from the first high-resolution (1 mm3) model of tDCS in a brain with considerable stroke-related damage; the model was individualized for the patient who received anodal tDCS to his left frontal cortex with the reference cathode electrode placed on his right shoulder. We modeled the resulting brain current flow and also considered three additional reference electrode positions: right mastoid, right orbitofrontal cortex, and a ‘mirror’ configuration with the anode over the undamaged right cortex. Our results demonstrate the profound effect of lesioned tissue on resulting current flow and the ability to modulate current pattern through the brain, including peri-lesional regions, through electrode montage design. The complexity of brain current flow modulation by detailed normal and pathological anatomy suggest: 1) That computational models are critical for the rational interpretation and design of individualized tDCS stroke-therapy; and 2) These models must accurately reproduce head anatomy as shown here.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Datta, A., Baker, J. M., Bikson, M., & Fridriksson, J.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
169-174
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W2108805590
Cited by
325
References
1
FWCI
8.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001
The paper
Datta, A., Baker, J. M., Bikson, M., & Fridriksson, J. (2011). Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. Brain Stimulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2010.11.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.