Low-intensity ultrasound stimulation modulates time-frequency patterns of cerebral blood oxygenation and neurovascular coupling of mouse under peripheral sensory stimulation state
Yi Yuan, Qianqian Wu, Xingran Wang, Mengyang Liu, Jiaqing Yan, Hui Ji
NeuroImage 2023 · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119979
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) not only modulates cerebral hemodynamics, neural activity, and neurovascular coupling characteristics in resting samples but also exerts a significant inhibitory effect on the neural activity in task samples. However, the effect of TUS on cerebral blood oxygenation and neurovascular coupling in task samples remains to be elucidated. To answer this question, we first used forepaw electrical stimulation of the mice to elicit the corresponding cortical excitation, and then stimulated this cortical region using different modes of TUS, and simultaneously recorded the local field potential using electrophysiological acquisition and hemodynamics using optical intrinsic signal imaging. The results indicate that for the mice under peripheral sensory stimulation state, TUS with a duty cycle of 50% can (1) enhance the amplitude of cerebral blood oxygenation signal, (2) reduce the time-frequency characteristics of evoked potential, (3) reduce the strength of neurovascular coupling in time domain, (4) enhance the strength of neurovascular coupling in frequency domain, and (5) reduce the time-frequency cross-coupling of neurovasculature. The results of this study indicate that TUS can modulate the cerebral blood oxygenation and neurovascular coupling in peripheral sensory stimulation state mice under specific parameters. This study opens up a new area of investigation for potential applicability of TUS in brain diseases related to cerebral blood oxygenation and neurovascular coupling.
Abstract via europepmc.
Exposures
Exposure 1: TUS combined with forepaw electrical stimulation (modes 2 and 3)
Target: somatosensory cortex — “mouse sensory cortex”
Device: not reported
| Waveform | pulsed | |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental frequency (kHz) | 500 | ✓✓✓ |
| Pulse duration (ms) | not reported | |
| Pulse repetition frequency (Hz) | 1,000 | ✓✓✓ |
| Duty cycle (%) | 50, 5swept | ✓✓✓⚑ |
| Sonication duration (s) | 0.3, 0.6, 0.9swept | ✓✓✓⚑ |
| 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) | 550 | ✓✓✓⚑ |
| Isppa, domain unspecified (W/cm²) | 10.1 | ✓✓✓ |
500 kHz, PRF 1 kHz, 300 ms stimulation, duty cycle 50% or 5%, delivered simultaneously with forepaw electrical stimulation (mode 2) or lagging it by 1 s (mode 3); extra groups used 600 and 900 ms durations at 5%.
Flags from extraction
exposures[0].unspecified_domain.pressure_kpa— Maximum pressure 0.55 MPa and Isppa 10.1 W/cm2 given without stating medium or skull path.exposures[0].timing.duty_cycle_pct— Duty cycle 50% and 5% are separate groups; 50% mode also used with a 1 s delay.exposures[0].target.terms— Paper says it did not target specific brain regions; stimulated the sensory cortex region identified by forepaw stimulation, coordinates AP -3.8, ML 2.5.exposures[0].timing.sonication_duration_s— Two additional groups (n = 5) used 600 and 900 ms in mode 2 (5%); only 300 ms recorded.exposures[0].device— Transducer not described; refers to a previous study's setup.