Closed-loop transcranial ultrasound stimulation with a fuzzy controller for modulation of motor response and neural activity of mice
Yi Yuan, Ai Long, Yongkang Wu, Xiaoli Li
Journal of Neural Engineering 2022 · 10.1088/1741-2552/ac7893
Abstract
Objective . We propose a closed-loop transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) with a fuzzy controller to realize real-time and precise control of the motor response and neural activity of mice. Approach . The mean absolute value (MAV) of the electromyogram (EMG) and peak value (PV) of the local field potential (LFP) were measured under different ultrasound intensities. A model comprising the characteristics of the MAV of the EMG, PV of the LFP, and ultrasound intensity was built using a neural network, and a fuzzy controller, proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller, and immune feedback controller were proposed to adjust the ultrasound intensity using the feedback of the EMG MAV and the LFP PV. Main results . In simulation, the quantitative calculation indicated that the maximum relative errors between the simulated EMG MAV and the expected values were 17% (fuzzy controller), 110% (PID control), 66% (immune feedback control); furthermore, the corresponding values of the LFP PV were 12% (fuzzy controller), 53% (PID control), 55% (immune feedback control). The average relative errors of fuzzy controller, PID control, immune feedback control were 4.97%, 13.15%, 11.52%, in the EMG closed-loop experiment and 7.76%, 11.84%, 13.56%, in the LFP closed-loop experiment. Significance . The simulation and experimental results demonstrate that the closed-loop TUS with a fuzzy controller can realize the tracking control of the motor response and neural activity of mice.
Abstract via europepmc.
Exposures
Exposure 1: closed-loop TUS of mouse motor cortex, 500 kHz
Target: motor cortex — “mouse motor cortex”
Device: Olympus / Panametrics · Olympus · V301-SU ✓
| Waveform | pulsed | |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental frequency (kHz) | 500 | ✓✓✓ |
| Pulse duration (ms) | not reportedimplied by duty cycle ÷ PRF: 0.5 ms (not stated by the paper) | ⚑ |
| Pulse repetition frequency (Hz) | 1,000 | ✓✓✓ |
| Duty cycle (%) | 50 | ✓✓✓ |
| Sonication duration (s) | 0.4 | ✓✓✓ |
| Free-field pressure (kPa) | not reported | |
|---|---|---|
| Free-field Isppa (W/cm²) | not reported | |
| Free-field Ispta (W/cm²) | not reported | |
| In-situ estimate | not reported | |
| In-situ pressure (kPa) | not reported | |
| In-situ Isppa (W/cm²) | not reported | |
| In-situ Ispta (W/cm²) | not reported | |
| Pressure, domain unspecified (kPa) | 210, 780swept | ✓✓✓⚑ |
Stimulation duration 400 ms, PRF 1 kHz, duty cycle 50%, stimulation interval 10 s; ultrasound intensity adjusted stimulus by stimulus by a fuzzy, PID or immune feedback controller using EMG or LFP feedback.
Flags from extraction
exposures[0].timing.pulse_duration_ms— Burst rule: DC 50% / PRF 1 kHz implies 0.5 ms pulses, so the 400 ms 'stimulation duration' is the train; pulse duration not stated.exposures[0].unspecified_domain.pressure_kpa— Pressure range is tied to generator voltage (350-750 mVpp) and described as sound pressure; domain not stated (hydrophone field map in a water tank was also described).n_subjects— 20 mice used for the open-loop and model experiments; 10 of them in closed-loop runs, plus six additional chemically deafened mice.exposures[0].unspecified_domain.isppa_w_cm2— Isppa and Ispta are given only in supplementary table S1, not in the main text.sham_type— No sham or control sonication arm; controllers (fuzzy, PID, immune) are compared.