← Explore

40 Hz noninvasive transcranial ultrasound stimulation modulates multiscale nonlinear dynamics of hippocampal CA1 neural oscillations of Alzheimer’s mouse model

Jiamin Chen, Hui Ji, Yi Yuan

Journal of Neural Engineering 2026 · 10.1088/1741-2552/ae9eed

rodentalzheimers diseaseinvasive electrophysiologybehaviour

Abstract

Objective. Aberrant nonlinear dynamics of hippocampal neural oscillations are a hallmark of early network dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease (AD), with critical roles in memory processing. Although transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) has shown cognitive benefits in AD models and patients, its effects on the nonlinear dynamics of hippocampal CA1 oscillations and their multiscale organization remain unclear. Approach. Here, we applied 40 Hz noninvasive TUS to the hippocampal CA1 region of AD mouse model and recorded local field potentials before, during, and after stimulation. Analyses integrated nonlinear dynamical metrics, power spectral dependencies, cross-frequency coupling, and event-level oscillatory features. Main results. We found that (1) 40 Hz TUS decreases complexity and irregularity of CA1 activity, and enhances dynamical activity and long-range temporal correlations in broadband and high-frequency ranges, increases complexity in the theta and beta bands. (2) TUS also significantly reduced theta-gamma and intra-gamma phase-amplitude coupling, while producing frequency-specific changes in the rate, amplitude, duration, and temporal organization of theta, gamma, and ripple events. (3) Furthermore, the relationship between nonlinear dynamics and power spectral density was modulated across stimulation phases. Significance. 40 Hz TUS can modulate multiscale nonlinear dynamics of neural oscillations in hippocampal CA1 of Alzheimer's mouse model, which lays a theoretical foundation for the clinical intervention of AD via ultrasound stimulation.

Abstract via europepmc.

Speciesmouse (APP/PS1 transgenic and wild-type)
Subjects6, 6swept animals
Sessions per subjectnot reported
Randomisednot reported
Blindingnot reported
Sham / controlundescribed
Auditory controlnot reported
Readout timingboth
Anaesthesiaawake
Readoutsinvasive electrophysiology, behaviourLocal field potential (LFP) recordings from hippocampal CA1 (nonlinear dynamics, phase-amplitude coupling, oscillatory event analysis); Morris water maze escape latency
Direction of effectmixed or unclear40 Hz TUS shortened Morris water maze escape latency in AD mice (AD+TUS vs AD and vs AD+Sham) but produced frequency-band-dependent, bidirectional electrophysiological changes in CA1: reduced complexity/increased dynamical activity in broadband and high-frequency (gamma, ripple) oscillations but increased complexity in theta and beta bands, alongside reduced theta-gamma and gamma-gamma phase-amplitude coupling.
Adverse eventsnot reportedThe maximum temperature increase did not exceed 0.05°C, and the mechanical index (0.36) was well below the FDA safety limit (MI < 1.9) and the ITRUSST consensus thermal-risk threshold (peak ΔT < 2°C).

Exposures

Exposure 1: 40 Hz TUS to hippocampal CA1 in AD (APP/PS1) and wild-type mice

Target: CA1 — “hippocampal CA1 region
Device: Olympus / Panametrics · Olympus, USA · V302-SU

Pulse timing
Waveformpulsed
Fundamental frequency (kHz)1,000✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)not reportedimplied by duty cycle ÷ PRF: 1.25 ms (not stated by the paper)
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)40✓✓
Duty cycle (%)5✓✓
Sonication duration (s)10✓✓
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
Pressure, domain unspecified (kPa)360✓✓
Isppa, domain unspecified (W/cm²)4.3✓✓
Ispta, domain unspecified (W/cm²)0.217✓✓
Protocol, in the paper’s words

Ultrasound stimulation was delivered at a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of 40 Hz, with a duty cycle of 5% and a duration of 10 s per trial. LFPs were recorded before, during, and after stimulation in awake, head-fixed mice; five experimental groups (WT, AD, AD+TUS, AD+Sham, WT+TUS, n=6 each) were tested in the Morris water maze before and after intervention, with only the AD+TUS and WT+TUS groups receiving real 40 Hz TUS.

Flags from extraction

  • n_subjectsAll five behavioural groups (WT, AD, AD+TUS, AD+Sham, WT+TUS) are reported with n=6 each; only AD+TUS and WT+TUS received real 40 Hz TUS, so those two group sizes are listed rather than summed.
  • exposures[0].unspecified_domain.pressure_kpaPaper does not state whether the reported acoustic pressure/Isppa/Ispta were measured free-field (e.g. hydrophone in water) or simulated/derated in situ; only a COMSOL finite-element simulation is mentioned for confirming focal targeting, not explicitly linked to these numbers, so values are placed in unspecified_domain.
  • exposures[0].timing.pulse_duration_msOnly duty cycle (5%) and PRF (40 Hz) are given; the paper does not separately state a pulse duration, and it is not computed here per the burst rule.
  • n_sessions_per_subjectThe paper describes a single 10 s per-trial stimulation and pre/on/post LFP recording, but does not state how many trials/days of TUS each animal received before the post-intervention Morris water maze test.
  • sham_typeAD+Sham group underwent 'transducer coupling and the sham stimulation procedure' but the paper does not describe the specific sham mechanism (e.g. power off vs. no coupling).