← Explore

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound modulates multi-frequency band phase synchronization between LFPs and EMG in mice

Yibo Wang, Ping Xie, Sa Zhou, Xingran Wang, Yi Yuan

Journal of Neural Engineering 2019 · 10.1088/1741-2552/ab0879

rodenthealthyinvasive electrophysiologyemg mep

Abstract

Objective Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation (LIPUS) targeted to the mouse motor cortex can simultaneously induce local field potentials (LFPs) and electromyogram (EMG) responses. However, the functional coupling relationship between LFP and EMG signals has not been elucidated to date. This study aimed to investigate the phase synchronization between LFP and EMG signals induced by LIPUS over the mouse motor cortex. Approach LIPUS at 500 kHz with varied sonication intensities and duty cycles (DCs), was delivered to the mouse motor cortex. LFPs of the motor cortex and EMG responses of the tail were simultaneously recorded during LIPUS. We then evaluated two control groups using the same experimental parameters, but changed the position of EMG recording to the hind leg and the ultrasound stimulus target to the primary visual cortex. The phase synchronization between LFPs and EMG signals was evaluated by performing a phase locking value (PLV) analysis in the time-frequency domain and was compared across specific frequency bands. Main results The results showed that LIPUS increased the phase synchronization in a broad frequency band (5-150 Hz), and the maximum duration of the increased PLV was stable at approximately 200 ms. It is worth noting that the sonication parameters directly affected the time-frequency domain distribution of cortico-muscular synchronization. Specifically, significant alpha and beta synchronization appeared at 0.2 and 0.4 W cm -2 I sppa stimulation, while gamma synchronization occurred at 0.8 and 1.1 W cm -2 I sppa stimulation. The synchronization in all frequency bands apparently increased at 30% DC. Beta synchronization weakened when the DC was less than 30%. Furthermore, no significant phase synchronization was observed in the two control groups. Significance Considering the close association between specific motor function and cortical-muscular synchronization in different frequency bands, we suggest that LIPUS over the motor cortex could selectively modulate motor function via different sonication parameters. Additionally, the phase synchronization between LFPs and EMG might be an invaluable index for assessing the ultrasonic effect on the motor system, which could be used in future clinical research to optimize ultrasound parameters. Thus, this study provides new insight into evaluating the neuromodulatory effects of ultrasound on motor function, thereby supporting the therapeutic application of ultrasound in neurological disorders characterized by motor deficits.

Abstract via europepmc.

Speciesmouse (BALB/c)
Subjects21 animals
Sessions per subjectnot reported
Randomisednot reported
Blindingnot reported
Sham / controlactive control site
Auditory controlnot reported
Readout timingonline
Anaesthesiaanaesthetised
Readoutsinvasive electrophysiology, emg mep — LFP and tail/hind-limb EMG; LFP-EMG phase locking value
Direction of effectexcitatoryLIPUS to the tail motor cortex increased LFP-EMG phase synchronization (5-150 Hz); band profile depended on intensity and duty cycle. No increase with hind-limb EMG or V1 stimulation.
Adverse eventsnot reported

Exposures

Exposure 1: LIPUS to tail motor cortex

Target: primary motor cortex — “tail motor cortex”
Device: Olympus / Panametrics · Olympus, Waltham, MA, USA · V301 ✓

Pulse timing
Waveformpulsed
Fundamental frequency (kHz)500✓✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2swept✓✓✓⚑
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)1,000✓✓✓⚑
Duty cycle (%)50, 40, 30, 20swept✓✓✓
Sonication duration (s)0.4✓✓✓⚑
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 estimatenot reported
In-situ pressure (kPa)not reported
In-situ Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
Isppa, domain unspecified (W/cm²)0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.1swept✓✓✓⚑
Protocol, in the paper’s words

Experiment A varied Isppa (1.10 to 0.20 W/cm2) at 50% DC; experiment B varied DC (50, 40, 30, 20%) at 1.10 W/cm2. PRF 1000 Hz, 400 ms sonication, inter-stimulus interval 360 ms; 30 epochs per condition.

Flags from extraction

  • exposures[0].timing.sonication_duration_s — Text calls 400 ms a 'pulse duration' in one place but Table 1 and legends give it as sonication duration (SD); tone burst duration is 0.2-0.5 ms.
  • exposures[0].unspecified_domain.isppa_w_cm2 — Isppa values 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.1 W/cm2; domain not stated.
  • exposures[0].timing.pulse_duration_ms — Read from Table 1 TBD column, which is garbled in the extraction; text gives 0.5 ms at 50% DC and 1 kHz PRF.
  • exposures[0].timing.pulse_repetition_frequency_hz — Table lists PRF as 1.00 kHz; text says 1000 Hz.
  • n_subjects — 21 mice total; subgroups of 9 (tail EMG), 6 (hind limb) and 6 (V1).

Notes: V1 stimulation (control) is recorded in sham_type as an active control site, not as an exposure.