Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A modified Delphi consensus on tenosynovial giant cell tumour and giant cell tumour of bone : a report from the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM).

The bone & joint journal·2026
Same author

Complications of PI to PIII hemipelvic resections for intermediate and malignant tumours : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bone & joint open·2026
Same author

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in stage III and IV resectable melanoma: an update to management and future directions.

The New Zealand medical journal·2026
Same author

Urban-Rural Variation in the Efficacy of a Mobile Health Anxiety Treatment for Young Adults: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine·2026
Same author

Cannabis retail environment and treatment for cannabis use disorder.

Drug and alcohol dependence·2026
Same author

Results from a randomized clinical trial of a digital depression treatment on anxiety symptoms: Empirical support for the generic cognitive model.

Psychiatry research·2026
Same journal

Case Report: Subacute combined degeneration misdiagnosed as a primary affective disorder: diagnostic pitfalls and clinical red flags.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
Same journal

Virtual reality based attentional bias modification training for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a feasibility study.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
Same journal

Job demands and resources in relation to burnout and educational coexistence among Chilean education workers.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
Same journal

Correction: Sleep characteristics and cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: age-specific associations.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
Same journal

Systematic review of animal studies on the use of herbal medicine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
Same journal

Alcohol and cannabis use severity in relation to compulsive sexual behavior and problematic pornography use in a non-clinical sample: a cross-sectional study.

Frontiers in psychiatry·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 24, 2026

Updated Technique for Reliable, Easy, and Tolerated Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Including Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
10:11

Updated Technique for Reliable, Easy, and Tolerated Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Including Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Published on: January 3, 2020

13.3K

Gender Differences in Current Received during Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.

Michael Russell1, Theodore Goodman2, Qiang Wang1

  • 1Aaken Laboratories , Davis, CA , USA.

Frontiers in Psychiatry
|September 2, 2014
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Individual differences in cranial bone density significantly impact current delivery in transcranial electrical stimulation (tCS). This variability, particularly between sexes and brain regions, necessitates personalized tCS protocols for effective neuromodulation.

Keywords:
AC StimulationDC StimulationMRImodelingtranscranial electrical stimulation

More Related Videos

Technique and Considerations in the Use of 4x1 Ring High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation HD-tDCS
15:05

Technique and Considerations in the Use of 4x1 Ring High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation HD-tDCS

Published on: July 14, 2013

40.5K
Modulating Cognition Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Cerebellum
11:47

Modulating Cognition Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Cerebellum

Published on: February 15, 2015

30.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 24, 2026

Updated Technique for Reliable, Easy, and Tolerated Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Including Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
10:11

Updated Technique for Reliable, Easy, and Tolerated Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Including Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Published on: January 3, 2020

13.3K
Technique and Considerations in the Use of 4x1 Ring High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation HD-tDCS
15:05

Technique and Considerations in the Use of 4x1 Ring High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation HD-tDCS

Published on: July 14, 2013

40.5K
Modulating Cognition Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Cerebellum
11:47

Modulating Cognition Using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of the Cerebellum

Published on: February 15, 2015

30.6K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Medical Imaging
  • Biophysics

Background:

  • Low current transcranial electrical stimulation (tCS) is a neuromodulation technique with variable efficacy.
  • Accurate current delivery to cortical tissues is crucial for consistent tCS outcomes.
  • Individual anatomical variations can influence current distribution during tCS.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To estimate current intensities delivered to cortical brain tissues using 3D MRI-guided modeling.
  • To investigate the influence of electrode size, stimulation intensity, and anatomical factors on current distribution.
  • To identify factors contributing to individual variability in tCS current delivery.

Main Methods:

  • 3D MRI (T1, T2, proton density) from 24 subjects (12 male, 12 female) were used for modeling.
  • Virtual electrodes (20mm round, 50mm × 45mm) were placed at F3, F4, C3, C4 locations.
  • Current intensity was simulated at 0.5, 1, and 2 mA, sampled in 1-cm cortical spheres.

Main Results:

  • A 10-fold variation in received current intensity was observed across individuals.
  • Females received significantly less current than males at the parietal cortex (P < 0.05).
  • Larger electrodes and parietal placements delivered more current than smaller ones and frontal placements (P < 0.01, P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

  • Cranial bone density differences (males: more cancellous parietal bone; females: denser parietal bone) explain gender and regional current variations (P < 0.01).
  • Significant individual and gender-based differences in current delivery underscore the need for personalized tCS protocols.
  • Findings challenge previous assumptions about hormonal influences on gender differences in tCS, highlighting anatomical factors.