Ramped V1 transcranial ultrasonic stimulation modulates but does not evoke visual evoked potentials
Tulika Nandi, Ainslie Johnstone, Eleanor Martin, Catharina Zich, Robert Cooper, Sven Bestmann, Til Ole Bergmann, Bradley Treeby, Charlotte J. Stagg
Brain Stimulation 2023, 16, 553-555 · 10.1016/j.brs.2023.02.004
Exposures
Exposure 1: Ramped TUS to left V1
Target: primary visual cortex — “primary visual cortex (V1)”
Device: Sonic Concepts · Sonic Concepts · H115-2AA ✓
| Waveform | pulsed | |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental frequency (kHz) | 270 | ✓✓✓ |
| Pulse duration (ms) | 3.25 | ✓✓✓ |
| Pulse repetition frequency (Hz) | 250 | ✓✓✓ |
| Duty cycle (%) | 50pulse duration × PRF gives 81.25%, which disagrees with the stated value | ✓✓✓⚑ |
| Sonication duration (s) | 0.3 | ✓✓✓ |
| Free-field pressure (kPa) | 700 | ✓✓✓ |
|---|---|---|
| Free-field Isppa (W/cm²) | 16 | ✓✓✓ |
| 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 |
Ramped pulses (1 ms Tukey ramp, 3.25 ms total pulse duration) were applied at a PRF of 250 Hz, with a pulse train duration of 300 ms and an effective duty cycle of 50%. In two TUS-only blocks, real and sham pulses (100 each) were applied randomly at a fixed inter-stimulus interval of 2 s; in two TUS checkerboard blocks, every fourth checkerboard flip (flipped every 0.5 s) was paired with a real or sham TUS trial (100 each), with the TUS trial starting 130 ms (±0-5 ms jitter) before the checkerboard flip.
Flags from extraction
sham_type— Paper does not describe the mechanism used to generate sham TUS pulses in this V1 study.exposures[0].timing.duty_cycle_pct— Stated duty cycle (50%) and PRF (250 Hz) imply a 2 ms pulse, but the stated total pulse duration is 3.25 ms (including a 1 ms Tukey ramp); recorded as stated, not recomputed.direction_of_effect— Real TUS increased N75 VEP amplitude relative to no-TUS trials, but real vs sham TUS trials were not significantly different, leaving the auditory-confound-free effect unclear.