← Explore

Non-Invasive Brain-to-Brain Interface (BBI): Establishing Functional Links between Two Brains

Seung-Schik Yoo, Hyungmin Kim, Emmanuel Filandrianos, Seyed Javid Taghados, Shinsuk Park

PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60410 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0060410

rodenthealthybehaviour

Abstract

Transcranial focused ultrasound (FUS) is capable of modulating the neural activity of specific brain regions, with a potential role as a non-invasive computer-to-brain interface (CBI). In conjunction with the use of brain-to-computer interface (BCI) techniques that translate brain function to generate computer commands, we investigated the feasibility of using the FUS-based CBI to non-invasively establish a functional link between the brains of different species (i.e. human and Sprague-Dawley rat), thus creating a brain-to-brain interface (BBI). The implementation was aimed to non-invasively translate the human volunteer's intention to stimulate a rat's brain motor area that is responsible for the tail movement. The volunteer initiated the intention by looking at a strobe light flicker on a computer display, and the degree of synchronization in the electroencephalographic steady-state-visual-evoked-potentials (SSVEP) with respect to the strobe frequency was analyzed using a computer. Increased signal amplitude in the SSVEP, indicating the volunteer's intention, triggered the delivery of a burst-mode FUS (350 kHz ultrasound frequency, tone burst duration of 0.5 ms, pulse repetition frequency of 1 kHz, given for 300 msec duration) to excite the motor area of an anesthetized rat transcranially. The successful excitation subsequently elicited the tail movement, which was detected by a motion sensor. The interface was achieved at 94.0±3.0% accuracy, with a time delay of 1.59±1.07 sec from the thought-initiation to the creation of the tail movement. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of a computer-mediated BBI that links central neural functions between two biological entities, which may confer unexplored opportunities in the study of neuroscience with potential implications for therapeutic applications.

Abstract via europepmc.

Speciesrat (Sprague-Dawley)
Subjects6 animals
Sessions per subjectnot reported
Randomisednot reported
Blindingnot reported
Sham / controlnone
Auditory controlnot reported
Readout timingonline
Anaesthesiaanaesthetised
ReadoutsbehaviourTail movement detected by a motion sensor wrapped around the caudal appendage
Direction of effectexcitatoryAll sonication trials except one (a false positive) out of 120 independent trials resulted in successful activation of the rat motor cortex and subsequent tail movement.
Adverse eventsnot reported

Exposures

Exposure 1: FUS excitation of rat tail motor cortex, triggered by a human SSVEP brain-computer interface

Target: motor cortex — “the area associated with tail movement
Device: custom-built

Pulse timing
Waveformpulsed
Fundamental frequency (kHz)350✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)0.5✓✓
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)1,000✓✓
Duty cycle (%)50pulse duration × PRF gives 50%✓✓
Sonication duration (s)0.3✓✓
Pressure and intensity, by domain
Free-field pressure (kPa)not reported
Free-field Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
Free-field Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ estimatederatingsingle value
In-situ pressure (kPa)530✓✓
In-situ Isppa (W/cm²)8.6✓✓
In-situ Ispta (W/cm²)4.3✓✓
Protocol, in the paper’s words

Two function generators were used to create the pulsed operation of sonication; the first generator controlled the overall duration of sonication (300 msec) and pulse repetition frequency (PRF: 1 KHz); the second generator, triggered by the first, generated a sinusoidal waveform at 350 kHz with a tone burst duration (TBD) of 0.5 msec. Sonication was triggered automatically by a computer upon detection of a human volunteer's steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), and the circuit was disabled for 10 s after each trigger to prevent repetitive operation.

Flags from extraction

  • n_subjectsText shows 'weight 363637 g' for the six rats, an apparent OCR/formatting artifact of a mean +/- SD value (likely 363 +/- 37 g); recorded here as it appears in the source.
  • model_systemThe study also involved 7 (optimization) and 6 (main BBI) human volunteers who performed the EEG/SSVEP brain-computer-interface task, but no ultrasound was ever applied to the humans; model_system and n_subjects therefore reflect only the sonicated rats.
  • adverse_eventsThe paper only cites a previous study (Yoo et al. 2011) as having used similar parameters without biological damage; it does not report a specific safety observation for the animals in this study.