A Comprehensive View of Electrosleep: The History, Finite Element Models and Future Directions

Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) encompasses all methods of non-invasive current application to the brain used in research and clinical practice. We present the first comprehensive and technical review, explaining the evolution of tES in both terminology and dosage over the past 100 years of research to present day. Current transcranial Pulsed Current Stimulation (tPCS) approaches such as Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES) descended from Electrosleep (ES) through Cranial Electro-stimulation Therapy (CET), Transcerebral Electrotherapy (TCET), and NeuroElectric Therapy (NET) while others like Transcutaneous Cranial Electrical Stimulation (TCES) descended from Electroanesthesia (EA) through Limoge, and Interferential Stimulation. Prior to a contemporary resurgence in interest, variations of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation were explored intermittently, including Polarizing current, Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS), and Transcranial Micropolarization. The development of these approaches alongside Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) and pharmacological developments are considered. Both the roots and unique features of contemporary approaches such as transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) and transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS) are discussed. Trends and incremental developments in electrode montage and waveform spanning decades are presented leading to the present day. Commercial devices, seminal conferences, and regulatory decisions are noted. This is concluded with six rules on how increasing medical and technological sophistication may now be leveraged for broader success and adoption of tES. Despite this history, questions regarding the efficacy of ES remain including optimal dose (electrode placement and waveform). An investigation into brain electric field and current density produced by various montages that are historically relevant to ES was done to evaluate how these montages effect the brain. MRI-derived head models that were segmented using an automated segmentation algorithm and manual corrections were solved for four different electrode montages. The montages that were used are as follows: Sponge electrode on left and right eyes (active), Sponge electrodes over left and right mastoids (return); Sponge electrodes above left and right eyes (active), Sponge electrodes over left and right mastoids (return); High-Definition (HD) electrodes on AF3 and AF4 (active), 5x7 cm sponge on neck (return); HD electrodes on AF3 and AF4 (active), 5x7 sponge electrode on Iz (return). A high concentration of electric field was found on the optic nerve, with levels lowered as the electrodes moved further away from the eyes. There was also a moderate current density on the amygdala, a center involved with anxiety, as well as high electric fields on the brain stem which are centers for sleep. Using the models that were run for the electrosleep inspired montages the montage that was selected for the proposed experiment was to use anodes on AF3 and AF4 with the cathode on Iz. The anodes will be HD electrodes while the cathode will be a 5x7 cm sponge. Subjects will be split into 4 groups of 8 people each and will receive two legs of stimulation spaced one week apart. One leg will have current of 2 mA, 1 mA, 0.5 mA or sham while the other leg is all sham and the order in which they receive it will be randomized. Subjects will be stimulated for 20 minutes at 100 Hz and will spend a total of 40 minutes during the experiment where they will have their eyes recorded with an IR sensitive camera and they will be required to perform an odd-tone response task. Subjects are expected to fall asleep faster with higher levels of current and there is no added effect from baseline expected for subjects who receive sham stimulatio

Reduced discomfort during high-definition transcutaneous stimulation using 6% benzocaine

Background: High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS) allows for non-invasive neuromodulation using an array of compact (approximately 1 cm2 contact area) “High-Definition” (HD) electrodes, as compared to conventional tDCS (which uses two large pads that are approximately 35 cm2). In a previous transcutaneous study, we developed and validated designs for HD electrodes that reduce discomfort over \u3e20 min session with 2 mA electrode current. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of a chemical pretreatment with 6% benzocaine (topical numbing agent) to further reduce subjective discomfort during transcutaneous stimulation and to allow for better sham controlled studies. Methods: Pre-treatment with 6% benzocaine was compared with control (no pretreatment) for 22 min 2 mA of stimulation, with either CCNY-4 or Lectron II electroconductive gel, for both cathodal and anodal transcutaneous (forearm) stimulation (eight different combinations). Results: Results show that for all conditions and polarities tested, stimulation with HD electrodes is safe and well tolerated and that pretreatment further reduced subjective discomfort. Conclusion: Pretreatment with a mild analgesic reduces discomfort during HD-tDCS

Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

<div><p><b>Introduction:</b> A simplified and computationally efficient human body finite element model is presented. The model complements the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) detailed 50th percentile occupant (M50-O) by providing kinematic and kinetic data with a significantly reduced run time using the same body habitus.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> The simplified occupant model (M50-OS) was developed using the same source geometry as the M50-O. Though some meshed components were preserved, the total element count was reduced by remeshing, homogenizing, or in some cases omitting structures that are explicitly contained in the M50-O. Bones are included as rigid bodies, with the exception of the ribs, which are deformable but were remeshed to a coarser element density than the M50-O. Material models for all deformable components were drawn from the biomechanics literature. Kinematic joints were implemented at major articulations (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle) with moment vs. angle relationships from the literature included for the knee and ankle. The brain of the detailed model was inserted within the skull of the simplified model, and kinematics and strain patterns are compared.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The M50-OS model has 11 contacts and 354,000 elements; in contrast, the M50-O model has 447 contacts and 2.2 million elements. The model can be repositioned without requiring simulation. Thirteen validation and robustness simulations were completed. This included denuded rib compression at 7 discrete sites, 5 rigid body impacts, and one sled simulation. Denuded tests showed a good match to the experimental data of force vs. deflection slopes. The frontal rigid chest impact simulation produced a peak force and deflection within the corridor of 4.63 kN and 31.2%, respectively. Similar results vs. experimental data (peak forces of 5.19 and 8.71 kN) were found for an abdominal bar impact and lateral sled test, respectively. A lateral plate impact at 12 m/s exhibited a peak of roughly 20 kN (due to stiff foam used around the shoulder) but a more biofidelic response immediately afterward, plateauing at 9 kN at 12 ms. Results from a frontal sled simulation showed that reaction forces and kinematic trends matched experimental results well. The robustness test demonstrated that peak femur loads were nearly identical to the M50-O model. Use of the detailed model brain within the simplified model demonstrated a paradigm for using the M50-OS to leverage aspects of the M50-O. Strain patterns for the 2 models showed consistent patterns but greater strains in the detailed model, with deviations thought to be the result of slightly different kinematics between models. The M50-OS with the deformable skull and brain exhibited a run time 4.75 faster than the M50-O on the same hardware.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> The simplified GHBMC model is intended to complement rather than replace the detailed M50-O model. It exhibited, on average, a 35-fold reduction in run time for a set of rigid impacts. The model can be used in a modular fashion with the M50-O and more broadly can be used as a platform for parametric studies or studies focused on specific body regions.</p></div