Time–frequency cross-coupling between cortical low-frequency neuronal calcium oscillations and blood oxygen metabolism evoked by ultrasound stimulation
Zhaocheng Su, Jiaqing Yan, Hui Ji, Mengyang Liu, Xiangjian Zhang, Xiaoli Li, Yi Yuan
Cerebral Cortex 2023 · 10.1093/cercor/bhac370
Abstract
Low-intensity transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) can modulate the coupling of high-frequency (160-200 Hz) neural oscillations and cerebral blood oxygen metabolism (BOM); however, the correlation of low-frequency (0-2 Hz) neural oscillations with BOM in temporal and frequency domains under TUS remains unclear. To address this, we monitored the TUS-evoked neuronal calcium oscillations and BOM simultaneously in the mouse visual cortex by using multimodal optical imaging with a high spatiotemporal resolution. We demonstrated that TUS can significantly increase the intensity of the neuronal calcium oscillations and BOM; the peak value, peak time, and duration of calcium oscillations are functionally related to stimulation duration; TUS does not significantly increase the neurovascular coupling strength between calcium oscillations and BOM in the temporal domain; the time differences of the energy peaks between TUS-induced calcium oscillations and BOM depend on their spectral ranges; the frequency differences of the energy peaks between TUS-induced calcium oscillations and BOM depend on their time ranges; and TUS can significantly change the phase of calcium oscillations and BOM from uniform distribution to a more concentrated region. In conclusion, ultrasound stimulation can evoke the time-frequency cross-coupling between the cortical low-frequency neuronal calcium oscillations and BOM in mouse.
Abstract via europepmc.
Exposures
Exposure 1: TUS of mouse visual cortex, stimulation duration 0.3-0.7 s
Target: primary visual cortex — “mouse visual cortex”
Device: Olympus / Panametrics · Olympus · V323-SU ✓
| Waveform | pulsed | |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental frequency (kHz) | 500 | ✓✓✓ |
| Pulse duration (ms) | not reportedimplied by duty cycle ÷ PRF: 0.1 ms (not stated by the paper) | ⚑ |
| Pulse repetition frequency (Hz) | 1,000 | ✓✓✓ |
| Duty cycle (%) | 10 | ✓✓✓ |
| Sonication duration (s) | 0.3, 0.7swept | ✓✓✓⚑ |
| 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) | 450 | ✓?⚑ |
| Isppa, domain unspecified (W/cm²) | 6.75 | ✓? |
500 kHz, 1 kHz PRF, 10% duty cycle; stimulation duration 0.4 s in the main protocol and varied from 0.3 to 0.7 s in 0.1 s steps; one stimulus every 10 s; 8 trials averaged, repeated after 30 min.
Flags from extraction
n_subjects— 15 total: 9 normal-hearing, 6 chemically deafened.exposures[0].timing.sonication_duration_s— Range 0.3-0.7 s recorded as stated; text says 0.4 s as the standard duration.exposures[0].unspecified_domain.pressure_kpa— 0.45 MPa and Isppa 6.75 W/cm2; hydrophone measurement 'under the skull' is mentioned but pressure domain not explicitly assigned.exposures[0].timing.pulse_duration_ms— Not stated; duty cycle and PRF given, but not computed here.