Comparison of Electrical and Ultrasound Neurostimulation in Rat Motor Cortex

Daniel W. Gulick, Tao Li, Jeffrey Kleim, Bruce C. Towe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Ultrasound (US) is known to non-invasively stimulate and modulate brain function; however, the mechanism of action is poorly understood. This study tested US stimulation of rat motor cortex (100 W/cm2, 200 kHz) in combination with epidural cortical stimulation. US directly evoked hindlimb movement. This response occurred even with short US bursts (3 ms) and had short latency (10 ms) and long refractory (3 s) periods. Unexpectedly, the epidural cortical stimulation hindlimb response was not altered during the 3-s refractory period of the US hindlimb response. This finding suggests that the US refractory period is not a general suppression of motor cortex, but rather the recovery time of a US-specific mechanism.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUltrasound in Medicine and Biology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

cortexes
Motor Cortex
refractory period
Hindlimb
stimulation
rats
refractories
brain
bursts
recovery
retarding
Brain

Keywords

  • Epidural cortical stimulation
  • Focused ultrasound
  • Neuromodulation
  • Neurostimulation
  • Therapeutic ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison of Electrical and Ultrasound Neurostimulation in Rat Motor Cortex. / Gulick, Daniel W.; Li, Tao; Kleim, Jeffrey; Towe, Bruce C.

In: Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c47ba0daff9e4281a020a8ed46724f1c,
title = "Comparison of Electrical and Ultrasound Neurostimulation in Rat Motor Cortex",
abstract = "Ultrasound (US) is known to non-invasively stimulate and modulate brain function; however, the mechanism of action is poorly understood. This study tested US stimulation of rat motor cortex (100 W/cm2, 200 kHz) in combination with epidural cortical stimulation. US directly evoked hindlimb movement. This response occurred even with short US bursts (3 ms) and had short latency (10 ms) and long refractory (3 s) periods. Unexpectedly, the epidural cortical stimulation hindlimb response was not altered during the 3-s refractory period of the US hindlimb response. This finding suggests that the US refractory period is not a general suppression of motor cortex, but rather the recovery time of a US-specific mechanism.",
keywords = "Epidural cortical stimulation, Focused ultrasound, Neuromodulation, Neurostimulation, Therapeutic ultrasound",
author = "Gulick, {Daniel W.} and Tao Li and Jeffrey Kleim and Towe, {Bruce C.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.08.937",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology",
issn = "0301-5629",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Electrical and Ultrasound Neurostimulation in Rat Motor Cortex

AU - Gulick, Daniel W.

AU - Li, Tao

AU - Kleim, Jeffrey

AU - Towe, Bruce C.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Ultrasound (US) is known to non-invasively stimulate and modulate brain function; however, the mechanism of action is poorly understood. This study tested US stimulation of rat motor cortex (100 W/cm2, 200 kHz) in combination with epidural cortical stimulation. US directly evoked hindlimb movement. This response occurred even with short US bursts (3 ms) and had short latency (10 ms) and long refractory (3 s) periods. Unexpectedly, the epidural cortical stimulation hindlimb response was not altered during the 3-s refractory period of the US hindlimb response. This finding suggests that the US refractory period is not a general suppression of motor cortex, but rather the recovery time of a US-specific mechanism.

AB - Ultrasound (US) is known to non-invasively stimulate and modulate brain function; however, the mechanism of action is poorly understood. This study tested US stimulation of rat motor cortex (100 W/cm2, 200 kHz) in combination with epidural cortical stimulation. US directly evoked hindlimb movement. This response occurred even with short US bursts (3 ms) and had short latency (10 ms) and long refractory (3 s) periods. Unexpectedly, the epidural cortical stimulation hindlimb response was not altered during the 3-s refractory period of the US hindlimb response. This finding suggests that the US refractory period is not a general suppression of motor cortex, but rather the recovery time of a US-specific mechanism.

KW - Epidural cortical stimulation

KW - Focused ultrasound

KW - Neuromodulation

KW - Neurostimulation

KW - Therapeutic ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030158245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030158245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.08.937

DO - 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.08.937

M3 - Article

JO - Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

JF - Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

SN - 0301-5629

ER -