High-Resolution Computational Modeling of the Current Flow in the Outer Ear During Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation (taVNS)
Full Paper Link Here: Kreisberg et al, 2021
High-resolution computational modeling of the current flow in the outer ear during transcutaneous auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation (taVNS)
Background
Transcutaneous auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation (taVNS) applies low-intensity electrical current to the ear with the intention of activating the auricular branch of the Vagus nerve. The sensitivity and selectivity of stimulation applied to the ear depends on current flow pattern produced by a given electrode montage (size and placement).
Objective
We compare different electrodes designs for taVNS considering both the predicted peak electric fields (sensitivity) and their spatial distribution (selectivity).
Methods
Based on optimized high-resolution (0.47 mm) T1 and T2 weighted MRI, we developed an anatomical model of the left ear and the surrounding head tissues including brain, CSF/meninges, skull, muscle, blood vessels, fat, cartilage, and skin. The ear was further segmented into 6 regions of interest (ROI) based on various nerve densities: cavum concha, cymba concha, crus of helix, tragus, antitragus, and earlobe. A range of taVNS electrode montages were reproduced spanning varied electrodes sizes and placements over the tragus, cymba concha, earlobe, cavum concha, and crus of helix. Electric field across the ear (from superficial skin to cartilage) for each montage at 1 mA or 2 mA taVNS, assuming an activation threshold of 6.15 V/m, 12.3 V/m or 24.6 V/m was predicted using a Finite element method (FEM). Finally, considering every ROI, we calculated the sensitivity and selectivity of each montage.
Results
Current flow patterns through the ear were highly specific to the electrode montage. Electric field was maximal at the ear regions directly under the electrodes, and for a given total current, increases with decreasing electrode size. Depending on the applied current and nerves threshold, activation may also occur in the regions between multiple anterior surface electrodes. Each considered montage was selective for one or two regions of interest. For example, electrodes across the tragus restricted significant electric field to the tragus. Stimulation across the earlobe restricted significant electric field to the earlobe and the antitragus. Because of this relative selectivity, use of control ear montages in experimental studies, support testing of targeting. Relative targeting was robust across assumptions of activation threshold and tissue properties.
Conclusions
Computational models provide additional insight on how details in electrode shape and placement impact sensitivity (how much current is needed) and selectivity (spatial distribution), thereby supporting analysis of existing approaches and optimization of new devices. Our result suggest taVNS current patterns and relative target are robust across individuals, though (variance in) axon morphology was not represented.