Journal of Medical Systems

, 42:244 | Cite as

Design of NIRS Probe Based on Computational Model to Find Out the Optimal Location for Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation

  • Gaurav Sharma
  • Shubhajit Roy ChowdhuryEmail author
Image & Signal Processing
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Image & Signal Processing


The paper presents a computational model to analyse the electric field distribution on the cerebral cortex during high definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) technique. The current research aims to improve the focality in term of magnitude of electric field (norm [E]) and magnitude of current density (norm [J]) in the gyri and sulci of white matter. The proposed computational model is used to predict the magnitude of current density and magnitude of electric field distribution generated across the target region of cerebral cortex for specific small size 1 × 1 cm2 multi-electrode HD-tDCS configurations. The current works aims at optimizing the number of electrodes and current density for multielectrode HD-tDCS configuration and weak current intensity is obtained by calculating surface area and penetration depth of target region of cerebral cortex. In terms of surface area and penetration depth 4 × 1 HD-tDCS and 2 mA weak dc current configuration has been selected. The optimized 4 × 1 HD-tDCS configuration is placed on target location of the brain surface and the changes in the magnitude of current density and magnitude of electric field distribution is calculated at the different locations on brain surface including scalp surface, skull surface gray matter and white matter surface. The variation in magnitude electric field distribution is seen in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), gray and white matter surface of target cerebral cortex. Based on the insights received from the variation in the magnitude of current density and magnitude of electric field distribution, the design of an appropriate NIRS probe has been proposed to aid in non-invasive brain stimulation. Designed NIRS probe is based on distance of separation between source and photodetector to cover the affected area with 4 × 1 HD-tDCS technique and measurement sensitivity distribution at gray matter surface of cerebral cortex. The estimated percentage of pixel area of measurement sensitivity distribution is 17.094%, which confirm to cover the 7.9384% distributed pixel area in term of calculated magnitude of current density affected with 4 × 1 HD-tDCS configuration.


Near infrared spectroscopy Non-invasive brain stimulation High definition transcranial current stimulation Magnetic resonance image Cerebrospinal fluid Finite element analysis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethics committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    World health report changing history. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mathers, C. D., Global burden of disease data source, methods and results. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thrift, A. G., Thayabaranathan, T., and Howard, G., Global stroke statistics. Int. J. Stroke 12:13–32, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purpura, D. P., and McMurtry, J. G., Intracellular activities and evoked potential changes during polarization of motor cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 28:166–185, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nitsche, M. A., and Paulus, W., Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol. 3:633–639, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nitsche, M. A., Cohen, L. G., Wassermann, E. M., Priori, A., Lang, N., and Antal, A., Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art. Brain Stimul 11:642, 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayley, T., Holloway, A. L., Roger, N., and Smith, A. D., Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Beginner's Guide for Design and Implementation. Front. Neurosci. 11:641, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moreno-Duarte, I., Gebodh, N., Schestatsky, P., Guleyupoglu, B., Reato, D., Bikson, M., and Fregni, F., The Stimulatied Brain Cognitive Enhnancement Using Non-Invasive BrainStimulation. In: Kadosh RC (ed), 8(2), 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fonteneaum, C., Redoute, J., Haesebaert, F., Le Bars, D., Costes, N., Suaud-Chagny, M.-F., and Brunelin, J., Frontal transcranial direct current stimulation induces dopamine release in the ventral striatum in human. Cereb. Cortex 28(7):2636–2646, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nitsche, M. A., Schauenburg, A., Lang, N., Liebetanz, D., Exner, C., Paulus, W., and Tergau, F., Facilitation of implicitmotor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J CognNeurosci 15(4):619–626, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao, H., Qiao, L., Fan, D., Zhang, S., Turel, O., Li, Y., Li, J., Xue, G., Chen, A, He, Q., Modulation of brain activity with noninvasive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): clinical applications and safety concerns. Front Psychol. 198(4323):1264–1267, 2017.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jobsis, F. F., Noninvasive, infrared monitoring of cerebral and myocardial oxygensufficiency and circulatory parameters. Science 198(4323):1264–1267, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, Y., Lech, G., Nioka, S., Intes, X., and Chance, B., Noninvasive, low-noise, fast imaging of blood volume and deoxygenation changes in muscles using light-emitting diode continuous-wave imager. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 73(8):3065, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, Y., Zhang, K., Zhang, L., Zong, H., Meng, L., and Han, R., Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) for perioperative monitoring of brain oxygenation in children and adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1:CD010947, 2018.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Villringer, A., and Chance, B., Non-invasive optical spectroscopy andimaging of human brain function. TINS 20(10):435–442, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Almajidy, R. K., Hofmann, U. G., On the design of a multi-channel NIR system to monitor functional brain activity, NIR2013 Proceedings, 2–7 June, La Grande-Motte, France.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jindal, U., Sood, M., Dutta, A., and Chowdhury, S. R., Development ofPoint of Care Testing Device for Neurovascular Coupling FromnSimultaneous Recording of EEG and NIRS During AnodalTranscranialDirect Current Stimulation. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med. 3:1–12, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Okada, E., The effect of superficial tissue of the head on spatial sensitivity profiles for near infrared spectroscopy and imaging. Opt. Rev. 7(5):375–382, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coyle, S. M., Ward, T. E., and Markham, C. M., Brain–computer interface using a simplified functional near-infrared spectroscopy system. J. Neural Eng. 4:219–226, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Denault, A., Deschamps, A., and Murkin, J. M., A Proposed algorithm for the intraoperative use of cerebral nearinfrared spectroscopy. Semin. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 11:274–281, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adhika, D., Hazrati, M., and Hofmann, U., An experimental setup for brain activity measurement based on near infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik 57(SI-1 Track-E):609–612, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aasted, C. M. et al., Anatomical Guidance for Functional near-Infrared Spectroscopy: AtlasViewer Tutorial. Neurophotonics 2(2):020801, 2015 PMC. Web.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Truong, D., Minhas, P., Nair, A., and Bikson, M., Computational modeling assisted design of optimized and individualized transcranial direct current stimulation protocols. The Stimulated Brain 2:759–766, 2014.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dagar, S., Chowdhury, S. R., Bapi, R. S., Dutta, A., and Roy, D., Near-infrared spectroscopy – electroencephalography-based brain-state-dependent electrotherapy: a computational approach based on excitation–inhibition balance hypothesis. Front. Neurol. 7:123, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guhathakurta, D., and Dutta, A., Computational Pipeline for NIRS-EEG Joint Imaging of tDCS-Evoked Cerebral Responses—An Application in Ischemic Stroke. Front. Neurosci. 10:261, 2016 PMC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shao, H., Qin, H., Hou, Y., Xia, H., and Zhou, P., Reconstructing 3D Model of Carotid Artery with Mimics and Magics. In: Tan, H., Zhou, M. (Eds), Advances in Information Technology and Education. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 201. Berlin: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jurcak, Valer; Tsuzuki, Daisuke; Dan, Ippeita, “10/20, 10/10, and 10/5 systems revisited: their validity as relative head-surface-based positioning systems, NeuroImage Volume 34, Issue 4, 15 February 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nicholson, P., Specific impedance of cerebral white matter. Exp. Neurol. 13(4):386–401, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holdefer, R. N., Sadleir, R., and Russell, M. J., Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117(6):1388–1397, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akhtari, M., Bryant, H., Mamelak, A., Flynn, E., Heller, L., Shih, J., Mandelkem, M., Matlachov, A., Ranken, D., Best, E., DiMauro, M., Lee, R., and Sutherling, W., Conductivities of three-layer live human skull. Brain Topogr. 14(3):151–167, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ashikhmin, A., and Aliev, R., Modelling of the electric field distribution in the brain during tDCS. Russ. J. Numer. Anal. Math. Model. 31(5):239–252, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thielscher, A., Antunes, A., and Saturnino, G. B., Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: a useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? IEEE EMBS 2015, Milano, Italy, 2015.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharma, G., Arora, Y., Chowdhury, S. R., A 4X1 high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation device for targeting cerebral micro vessels and functionality using NIRS. IEEE International Symposium on Nanoelectronic and Information Systems, Gwalior India, 2016.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huppert, T. J., Diamond, S. G., Franceschini, M. A., and Boas, D. A., HomER: a review of time-series analysis methods for near-infrared spectroscopy of the brain. Appl. Opt. 48(10):D280–D298, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gagnon, L., Cooper, R. J., Yucel, M. A., Perdue, K. L., Greve, D. N., and Boas, D. A., Short separation channel location impacts the performance of short channel regression in NIRS. Neuroimage 59:2518–2528, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strangman, G. E., Li, Z., and Zhang, Q., Depth sensitivity and source-detector separations for near infrared spectroscopy based on the colin27 brain template. Ed. Xi-Nian Zuo. PLoS ONE 8.8, 2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guan, J., Fang, S., and Guo, C., Optical tomography reconstruction algorithm based on the radiative transfer equation considering refractive index-Part 2: inverse model. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 37(3):256–262, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hiraoka, M. et al., A Monte Carlo investigation of optical pathlength in inhomogeneous tissue and its application to near-infrared spectroscopy. Phys. Med. Biol. 38(12):1859–1876, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Giacometti, P., and Diamond, S. G., Correspondence of Electroencephalography and near-Infrared Spectroscopy Sensitivities to the Cerebral Cortex Using a High-Density Layout. Neurophotonics 1:2, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spruston, N., Pyramidal neurons: dendritic structure and synaptic integration. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9:206–221, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stagg, C., and Nitsche, M., Physiological Basis of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. The Neuroscientist: a Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology and Psychiatry. 17:37–53, 2011. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cipolla, M. J., The cerebral circulation. San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences. Chapter 2, Anatomy and Ultrastructure, 2009.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stagg, e., Polarity sensitive modulation of cortical neurotransmitters by transcranial stimulation. J. Neurosci. 29:5202–5206, 2009. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wessel, M. J., Zimerman, M., and Hummel, F. C., Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: An Interventional Tool for Enhancing Behavioral Training after Stroke. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9:265, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Das, S. et al., Impact of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Neuronal Functions. Front. Neurosci. 10:550, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jayaram, G., Tang, B., Pallegadda, R., Vasudevan, E. V. L., Celnik, P., and Bastian, A., Modulating locomotor adaptation with cerebellar stimulation. J.Neurophysiol. 107:2950–2957, 2012. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chan, C. Y., and Nicholson, C., Modulation by Applied Electric Fields of Purkinje and Stellate Cell Activity in the Isolated Turtle Cerebellum. J. Physiol. 371:89–114, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chan, C. Y., Hounsgaard, J., and Nicholson, C., Effects of Electric Fields on Transmembrane Potential and Excitability of Turtle Cerebellar Purkinje Cells in Vitro. J. Physiol. 402:751–771, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Medeiros, L. F. et al., Neurobiological effects of transcranial direct current stimulation: a review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 110 3, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomedical Systems Lab, MANAS Group, School of Computing and Electrical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MandiKamandIndia

Personalised recommendations