Modelling Electric Field Distribution in Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting Auditory Verbal Hallucinations in People with Schizophrenia: A SimNIBS Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a potential alternate or add-on treatment for auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) in people with schizophrenia (SCZ) exhibits variability in terms of its therapeutic effects, such as reducing positive symptoms. This study explores the utility of a non-invasive brain stimulation software called SimNIBS simulation software to investigate the role of individual anatomical differences in potentially influencing the effectiveness of tDCS treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data was collected from 12 participants with SCZ and a history of AVHs to construct head models, which were segmented and adjusted manually. The SimNIBS graphical user interface was used to mirror actual tDCS electrode size and placements for individual head models. The simulation modelled variability of the electric field (EF) depth and distribution in regions of interest across participants. The use of SimNIBS as a tool to model E-field contributions to our understanding of the effectiveness of tDCS treatment, while also demonstrating the importance of individualized treatment protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".