Torge Worbs’s research while affiliated with Technical University of Denmark and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (14)


(A) Schematic of the calculation steps for determining the electric field for a new coil position. Items marked in green are pre-calculated and stored in memory: First, as the dA/dt field is not influenced by the head, it is calculated on a regular 3D grid for a standardized coil position once and stored as NifTI file. During runtime, the dA/dt field of a new coil position is then determined using a computationally efficient linear interpolation. Second, the stiffness matrix S is pre-calculated and the preparation step of the solver (that only requires S) is run once at startup. Third, for a new coil position, the steps to determine b and E and the SPR calculations can be written as sparse matrix multiplications, whereby the matrix weights do not depend on the coil position and are thus pre-calculated at startup ( ⊗ denotes multiplication with a sparse matrix in compressed sparse row format). (B) Left: Bilateral central gray matter ROI (∼260.000 vertices, 1885 cm²) used for calculation and visualization of the E-fields, and the 32 coil positions used for testing (each with 4 orientations). The positions are chosen as subset of the EEG10-10 system. Middle and right: optimized head mesh that has high resolution around the gray matter and high anatomical accuracy of the boundaries between gray matter, white matter, CSF and skull. (C) Left: left M1 + DLPFC ROI (shown in gray, ∼28.000 vertices, 210 cm²) and the 11 coil positions used for testing (each with 4 orientations). Middle and right: optimized head mesh with high resolution and high anatomical accuracy within 25 mm distance to the visualization ROI (indicated as orange line), and a coarser resolution in the rest of the volume. (D) Example of an E-field visualization in the Localite TMS Navigator software. (E) Example of the four orientations tested per coil position, here shown for position C3. The green arrows indicate the positions of the coil handles.
(A) Error levels when removing parts of the neck, relative to simulations with the non-cut mesh. The red arrows indicate the cutting level used for the TMS-optimized head meshes for the remaining results. On the right, the blue horizontal line indicates the level of the lowest part of the cranial cavity. Cuts were performed from 0.5 cm above to 5 cm below this level. (B) Results of the convergence analysis for the head model with ∼1.9 M tetrahedra, the bilateral central gray matter ROI and the coil positions shown in figure 1(B). The ‘split level’ on the x-axis indicates the factor by which the number of tetrahedra was increased, and ranges from 1 (original mesh with ∼1.9 M tetrahedra) to 83.7 (reference mesh with ∼159.1 M tetrahedra). (C) Results of the convergence analysis for the head model with ∼0.9 M tetrahedra, the left M1 + DLPFC ROI and the coil positions shown in figure 1(C).
Fast FEM-based electric field calculations for transcranial magnetic stimulation
  • Article
  • Publisher preview available

May 2025

·

5 Reads

Fang Cao

·

·

Torge Worbs

·

[...]

·

Objective. To provide a finite-element method (FEM) for rapid, repeated evaluations of the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the brain for changing coil positions. Approach. Previously, we introduced a first-order tetrahedral FEM enhanced by super-convergent patch recovery (SPR), striking a good balance between computational efficiency and accuracy (Saturnino et al 2019 J. Neural Eng. 16 066032). In this study, we refined the method to accommodate repeated simulations with varying TMS coil position. Starting from a fast direct solver, streamlining the pre- and SPR-based post-calculation steps by implementing these steps as parallel sparse matrix multiplications strongly improved the computational efficiency. Additional speedups were achieved through efficient multi-core and GPU acceleration, alongside the optimization of the volume conductor model of the head for TMS. Main Results. For an anatomically detailed head model with ∼4.4 million tetrahedra, the optimized implementation achieves update rates above 1 Hz for electric field calculations in bilateral gray matter, resulting in a 60-fold speedup over the previous method with identical accuracy. An optimized model without neck and with adaptive spatial resolution scaled in dependence to the distance to brain grey matter, resulting in ∼1.9 million tetrahedra, increased update rates up to 10 Hz, with ∼3% numerical error and ∼4% deviation from the standard model. Region-of-interest (ROI) optimized models focused on the left motor, premotor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices reached update rates over 20 Hz, maintaining a difference of <4% from standard results. Our approach allows efficient switching between coil types and ROI during runtime which greatly enhances the flexibility. Significance. The optimized FEM enhances speed, accuracy and flexibility and benefits various applications. This includes the planning and optimization of coil positions, pre-calculation and training procedures for real-time electric field simulations based on surrogate models as well as targeting and dose control during neuronavigated TMS.

View access options


Voxel-wise analyses of motor cortex functions with multichannel TMS

February 2025

·

35 Reads

Before, we've introduced voxel-wise TMS mapping [1]: This approach uses simulations of the TMS-induced E-field to perform voxel-wise regression, fitting the cortical stimulation to behavioral modulation. With this, we were able to significantly improve localization resolution. Here, we supercharge this mapping approach by utilizing multichannel TMS (mTMS) to generate highly varying E-fields to further increase stimulation accuracy while reducing the number of TMS pulses.





Figure 3: A) Coil-scalp distances before and after optimization. The distance is calculated as the mean distance between the pre-defined sets of positions on the coil casings and their nearest scalp position for each subject. B) Maximally occurring intersections of the coil with the head before and after distance optimization. Signed distances are reported, with negative values indicating intersections, and positive values the minimal distance between coil casing and scalp in case of no intersections. Specifically, for each individual optimization result, the minimal value of the signed distances between the scalp and any of the predefined positions on the coil casing is shown. This corresponds to the deepest intersection or, in case no intersection occurred, positive values indicate the minimal distance between coil casing
Figure 5: Results of the optimization of the mean electric field strength in the handknob ROI for the MagVenture Cool-B65 coil. The differences of the mean electric field magnitudes in the ROI obtained by our optimization approach versus a grid search are shown. A) Comparison to results of a "coarse"
FIGURES
Personalized electric field simulations of deformable large TMS coils based on automatic position and shape optimization

December 2024

·

36 Reads

Background: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) therapies use both focal and unfocal coil designs. Unfocal designs often employ bendable windings and moveable parts, making realistic simulations of their electric fields in inter-individually varying head sizes and shapes challenging. This hampers comparisons of the various coil designs and prevents sys-tematic evaluations of their dose-response relationships. Objective: Introduce and validate a novel method for optimizing the position and shape of flexible coils taking individual head anatomies into account. Evaluate the impact of realistic modeling of flexible coils on the electric field simulated in the brain. Methods: Accurate models of four coils (Brainsway H1, H4, H7; MagVenture MST-Twin) were derived from computed tomography data and mechanical measurements. A generic representation of coil deformations by concatenated linear transformations was introduced and validated. This served as basis for a principled approach to optimize the coil positions and shapes, and to optionally maximize the electric field strength in a region of interest (ROI). Results: For all four coil models, the new method achieved configurations that followed the scalp anatomy while robustly preventing coil-scalp intersections on N=1100 head models. In contrast, setting only the coil center positions without shape deformation regularly led to physically impossible configurations. This also affected the electric field calculated in the cortex, with a median peak difference of ~16%. In addition, the new method outperformed grid search-based optimization for maximizing the electric field of a standard figure 8 coil in a ROI with a comparable computational complexity. Conclusion: Our approach alleviates practical hurdles that so far hampered accurate simula-tions of bendable coils. This enables systematic comparison of dose-response relationships across the various coil designs employed in therapy.


Fig. 2: (a) Base geometry of the electrode array defined by the user in normalized space (í µí±¥í µí±¦-plane); 685 (b) Head model showing the valid region on the skin surface í µí»º, where the electrodes can be located 686 (darker region). The fitted triaxial ellipsoid used to parametrize the electrode array location and 687 orientation (í µí±¥) for the optimization is indicated with small gray dots. In-and output currents are 688 defined in the skin nodes (red and blue dots, respectively) according to the applied Dirichlet 689 approximation to consider the equal voltage constraint of each electrode channel. 690
Fig. 3: (a) Focality optimization: Optimization of the ROC curve; The focality is improved by minimizing 692 the distance í µí± between the reference location at 1 í µí± í µí±í µí±’í µí±, í µí± í µí±’í µí±›í µí± 0,1 and the current iteration. 693 The optimization criterion was chosen to be particularly strict here by defining two separate 694 thresholds such as the field should be greater than 0.5 (a.u.) in the ROI and smaller than 0.3 (a.u.) in 695 the non-ROI; (b) Anti-focality optimization: Optimization of the ROC curve to improve the field spread 696 for TTFields while ensuring high electric field values in the tumor region (ROI). Here it is the goal to 697 minimize the distance í µí± at 1 í µí± í µí±í µí±’í µí±, í µí± í µí±’í µí±›í µí± 1,1, which maximizes the electric field in the ROI and 698 simultaneously makes the stimulation as unspecific as possible (i.e. make the number of false positives 699 in the non-ROI as high as possible). 700
Fig. 5: Optimization results for conventional TES: (a) Representative example of intensity based 709 optimization showing the resulting electric field in the brain; (b) Histograms of the average electric 710 field magnitude (higher is better) determined from 200 random electrode configurations (RND) and 711 30 optimization runs (OPT). The optimizations were performed without Dirichlet correction (no) and 712 with node-wise Dirichlet correction (node), but the shown objective function values were determined 713 in final reference simulations; (c) Representative example of focality based optimization; (d) same as 714 (b) but goal function is focality according to distance í µí± in Fig. 3(a) (lower is better). 715
Tissue types and associated electrical conductivities of the headmodel. 751 Tissue type Electrical conductivity in S/m Reference
A Leadfield-Free Optimization Framework for Transcranially Applied Electric Currents

December 2024

·

53 Reads

Background Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (TES), Temporal Interference Stimulation (TIS), Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) and Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are based on the application of electric current patterns to the brain. Objective The optimal electrode positions, shapes and alignments for generating a desired current pattern in the brain vary between persons due to anatomical variability. The aim is to develop a flexible and efficient computational approach to determine individually optimal montages based on electric field simulations. Methods We propose a leadfield-free optimization framework that allows the electrodes to be placed freely on the head surface. It is designed for the optimization of montages with a low to moderate number of spatially extended electrodes or electrode arrays. Spatial overlaps are systematically prevented during optimization, enabling arbitrary electrode shapes and configurations. The approach supports maximizing the field intensity in target region-of-interests (ROI) and optimizing for a desired focality-intensity tradeoff. Results We demonstrate montage optimization for standard two-electrode TES, focal center-surround TES, TIS, ECT and TTFields. Comparisons against reference simulations are used to validate the performance of the algorithm. The system requirements are kept moderate, allowing the optimization to run on regular notebooks and promoting its use in basic and clinical research. Conclusion(s) The new framework complements existing optimization methods that require small electrodes, a predetermined discretization of the electrode positions on the scalp and work best for multi-channel systems. It strongly extends the possibilities to optimize electrode montages towards application-specific aims and supports researchers in discovering innovative stimulation schemes. The framework is available in SimNIBS.


Figure 2 (A) Error levels when removing parts of the neck, relative to simulations with the noncut mesh. The red arrows indicate the cutting level used for the TMS-optimized head meshes for the remaining results. On the right, the blue horizontal line indicates the level of the lowest part of the cranial cavity. Cuts were performed from 0.5 cm above to 5 cm below this level. (B) Results of the convergence analysis for the head model with ~1.9 M tetrahedra, the bilateral central gray matter ROI and the coil positions shown in Fig. 1B. The "split level" on the x-axis indicates the factor by which the number of tetrahedra was increased, and ranges from 1 (original mesh with ~1.9 M tetrahedra) to 83.7 (reference mesh with ~159.1 M tetrahedra). (C) Results of the convergence analysis for the head model with ~0.9 M tetrahedra, the left M1+DLPFC ROI and the coil positions shown in Fig. 1C.
Figures
Update rates in [ms] (CPU: Windows 10, Intel i7-11700, 16 cores, 32GB RAM; CPU&GPU: Windows 11, Intel i9-13900KF, 24 cores, 32GB RAM, NVIDIA RTX3060Ti). Unless indicated otherwise, the results are for the model of the Magstim 70mm figure-8 coil. Listed are average values (± SD) of 25000 cycles (without visualization) and 1000 cycles (with visualization). As the visualization is currently restricted to the E-field magnitude, update rates were only determined for that case.
Fast FEM-based Electric Field Calculations for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

December 2024

·

36 Reads

Objective To provide a Finite-Element Method (FEM) for rapid, repeated evaluations of the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the brain for changing coil positions. Approach Previously, we introduced a first-order tetrahedral FEM enhanced by super- convergent patch recovery (SPR), striking a good balance between computational efficiency and accuracy (Saturnino et al 2019 J. Neural Eng . 16 066032). In this study, we refined the method to accommodate repeated simulations with varying TMS coil position. Starting from a fast direct solver, streamlining the pre- and SPR-based post-calculation steps using weight matrices computed during initialization strongly improved the computational efficiency. Additional speedups were achieved through efficient multi-core and GPU acceleration, alongside the optimization of the volume conductor model of the head for TMS. Main Results For an anatomically detailed head model with ∼4.4 million tetrahedra, the optimized implementation achieves update rates above 1 Hz for electric field calculations in bilateral gray matter, resulting in a 60-fold speedup over the previous method with identical accuracy. An optimized model without neck and with adaptive spatial resolution scaled in dependence to the distance to brain grey matter, resulting in ∼1.9 million tetrahedra, increased update rates up to 10 Hz, with ∼3% numerical error and ∼4% deviation from the standard model. Region-of-interest (ROI) optimized models focused on the left motor, premotor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices reached update rates over 20 Hz, maintaining a difference of <4% from standard results. Our approach allows efficient switching between coil types and ROI during runtime which greatly enhances the flexibility. Significance The optimized FEM enhances speed, accuracy and flexibility and benefits various applications. This includes the planning and optimization of coil positions, pre-calculation and training procedures for real-time electric field simulations based on surrogate models as well as targeting and dose control during neuronavigated TMS.



Citations (2)


... With a similar focality as existing coils, we demonstrated the feasibility of electronic control of the stimulus orientation to generate MEPs at specific E-field orientations (see Fig. 9A-B). Even so, these relatively broad E-fields might not allow selective activation of spatially close cortical network nodes in the small rodent brain unless the cortical neuronal populations in question have an orientation specificity as demonstrated in humans (Cerins et al., 2024;Pieramico et al., 2023;Souza et al., 2022;Weise et al., 2023). The relatively broad E-fields may also elicit widespread bloodoxygen-level dependent responses that are not specifically linked to the target area. ...

Reference:

Multi-coil TMS for preclinical applications in ultra-high-field MRI
Directional sensitivity of cortical neurons towards TMS-induced electric fields

... Commonly used dosing strategies based on the resting motor threshold (rMT), e.g., 90% rMT, do not yield the same cortical stimulation exposure across different cortical areas. In contrast, e-field-based dosing (Caulfield et al., 2021;Dannhauer et al., 2022;Weise et al., 2023;Kuhnke et al., 2023) mitigates differences in cortical depths and anatomical properties between M1 (where rMT is established), and the actual target region. However, to leverage its full potential, this dynamic and emerging branch (Gomez-Tames et al., 2020) of applied, simulation-based neurostimulation has to agree on general metrics with which on-and off-target stimulation are defined (c.f. ...

An efficient and easy-to-use model to determine the stimulation thresholds in transcranial brain stimulation and its application to TMS mapping
  • Citing Presentation
  • January 2023

Brain Stimulation