Henry, K. R.; Jiang, F.; Wartman, W. A.; Tang, D.; Qian, Y.; Elahi, B.; Makaroff, S. N.; Golestani Rad, L.

Objective: Computational models and visualization toolboxes for Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) increasingly rely on pre-computed electric field libraries to estimate the Volume of Tissue Activated (VTA). However, the boundary conditions (BCs) and source models used to generate these fields vary widely across studies, and there is currently no experimental consensus regarding which parameters most accurately reflect the physical device output. The objective of this study was to experimentally validate the electric potential distribution of directional DBS leads in order to determine the optimal Finite Element Method (FEM) configuration. Approach: The voltage distribution surrounding a Boston Scientific Vercise Gevia directional lead was mapped in a saline phantom using a custom high-precision robotic scanning system. Experimental measurements were compared against six FEM configurations that varied in source formulation (Dirichlet vs. Neumann boundary conditions) and ground definitions. For each configuration, the resulting VTA volume was computed to assess the clinical impact of modeling assumptions. Results: The FEM configuration implementing a Dirichlet (voltage) boundary condition on the active contact with a grounded implantable pulse generator (IPG) surface demonstrated the highest accuracy, achieving a Symmetric Mean Absolute Percent Error (SMAPE) of less than 9% across all contact levels. In contrast, conventional current-controlled simulations employing Neumann boundary conditions with disparate ground definitions substantially overestimated electric field spread. Suboptimal boundary condition selection resulted in an approximate 67% overestimation of VTA volume (137 mm3 vs. 82 mm3) relative to the experimentally validated model. Significance: Although clinical DBS systems operate as current sources, standard Neumann (current density) boundary conditions do not adequately represent the equipotential behavior of the electrode-tissue interface, resulting in nearly a two-fold error in predicted VTA volume. To improve the validity of predictive clinical models, we recommend the use of Dirichlet boundary conditions derived from the device operating impedance (V= Itarget x Zmeasured) rather than conventional current density specifications.