Ultrasound neuromodulation hypotheses on the directionality of effects and community resource
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Iowa, United States
- Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University Medical School, United Kingdom
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, United States
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
- Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
- Stem Cell and Brain Research Institute, INSERM U1208, University of Lyon, France
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin at Madison, United States
- Iowa Neuroscience Institute, University of Iowa, United States
Figures
Figure 1
Schematic overview of the specificity of brain perturbation techniques.
Brain perturbation techniques vary in the precision of the spatial and temporal effects that can be elicited, on logarithmic (log10) scales. This includes transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS, that we refer to in this paper as TUS), in green. Some approaches with cellular specificity are shown that are currently primarily in use with nonhuman animals as models (optogenetics, infrared neuromodulation, chemogenetics, and genetic manipulation). Figure modified with permission from P.C. Klink, from Klink et al., 2021.
Figure 2
Low-intensity transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) for neuromodulation in humans.
(A, B, C) Example focal TUS targeting of a human motor cortex using k-plan software (BrainBox, Inc). (D) TUS simulation software uses an input set of parameters (e.g. pulse duration, sonication duration, pulse repetition frequency, transducer fundamental frequency, intensity in water (ISPPA)) to simulate and calculate the estimated TUS intensity in the target brain region using the participant’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT scans if available, or template human brain and CT scans. Simulation software will also generate the complete set of minimal parameters for reporting. This is a simulation only and simulation output parameters need to be checked with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation Safety and Standards (ITRUSST) recommended levels (Table 2).
Figure 3
Meta-analysis selection and inclusion criteria using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommended approach.
Selection and inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis with resulting sample sizes for the meta-analysis.
Figure 4
Online and offline transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) study parameters and outcomes.
(A) Online effects, based on the studies in Appendix 1—table 1, are shown segregated by probable enhancement versus suppression. Light blue line shows the Neuronal Intramembrane Cavitation Excitation (NICE) model boundary between suppression and enhancement. Blue circles are human studies reporting probable enhancement, red circles probable suppression. Index numbers correspond to the studies numbered in Appendix 1—table 1. (B) Same format and analysis approach showing the ‘offline’ effects studies in Appendix 1—table 2 with stars. Numbers correspond to the studies numbered in Appendix 1—table 2. (C) Combined figure with online (Appendix 1—table 1) and offline (Appendix 1—table 2) studies. Same symbol and color use as in A-B. (D) Additional hypothesized parameters, such as pulse repetition frequency (PRF), can be plotted from the inTUS_DATABASE in multi-dimensional spaces as shown and with the inTUS resource app.
Figure 5
Box plots of meta-analysis results for the transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) parameters of interest.
Shown are boxplots for TUS parameters of interest segregated by probable enhancement or suppression (data from Appendix 1—tables 1 and 2). Plots show TUS parameters: pulse repetition frequency (PRF), duty cycle (DC), sonication duration (SD), and ISPPA Brain. These are shown separately for online effects (A) and offline effects (B).
Figure 6
Random Forest Walk multivariate pattern analysis results.
Results of the Random Forest Walk analysis with the four parameters of interest in the second key database inTUS_DATABASE_1–2025 compared to a shuffled parameter dataset (left). Left panel shows that the average accuracy (mean=0.55; SD=0.14) is not far from the shuffled dataset (mean=0.48; SD=0.15), suggesting that the dataset size may not yet be robust for multivariate analyses. The right panel shows the ordered decrease in accuracy when the variable is permuted (permutation importance: higher values carry more importance). We observe that the importance values are low (between –0.06 and 0.04; right panel), warranting caution in interpretation at this stage of the inTUS database.
Tables
Table 1
Transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) key parameters.
Shown are the abbreviations and measurement value definitions for TUS parameters.
| Parameters | Description | Definition | Units |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISPPA | Intensity spatial peak pulse average | Refers to the average acoustic intensity | W/cm2 |
| ISPTA | Intensity spatial peak temporal average | Temporally averaged intensity over the sonication duration (ISPPA * Duty cycle) | W/cm2 |
| SD | Sonication duration | Period during which TUS is applied to the brain target | Seconds |
| DC | Duty cycle | Ratio of sonication on and off time | % |
| PRF | Pulse repetition frequency | The number of pulses per second delivered to the target | Hz |
| MI | Mechanical index | Characterizes the likelihood of mechanical cavitation caused by TUS | |
| TI | Thermal index | Estimate of temperature rise in tissue due to TUS exposure. |
Table 2
Transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) recommendations.
The International Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation Safety and Standards (ITRUSST) consortium has recently established recommendations based on existing guidelines for diagnostic ultrasound from regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS) and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Some in the community might follow the FDA guidelines for diagnostic ultrasound, see Table 1 for a description of these parameters. The ITRUSST consortium concurs with the FDA limits on MI, but differs on the importance placed on the intensity (intensity spatial peak pulse average, ISPPA/intensity spatial peak time average, ISPTA) parameters independently of consideration of the thermal index (TI) (noted by * in the box above). Namely, ITRUSST recommends that the thermal maximal exposure is ≤2 °C at any time, the thermal dose is ≤0.25 CEM43 or the maximum exposure time is also considered (e.g. 10 s 5.0<TI ≤ 6.0), please see Aubry et al., 2025. Importantly, the ITRUSST recommendations should be considered in parallel to individualized simulations and measurement of thermal effects to further reduce the risk of adverse effects.
Limits for diagnostic ultrasound | |
|---|---|
| ISPPA | ≤190 W/cm2 |
| ISPTA | ≤720 mW/cm2* |
| MI | ≤1.9 |
| TI | <6* |
Table 3
Net enhancement versus suppression hypotheses.
Summarized hypotheses on how net enhancement or suppression could be biased with transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) parameters. Note that the threshold for intensity spatial peak pulse average (ISPPA) qualifying as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ intensity is currently poorly understood or may non-linearly interact with other factors, such as duty cycle (Plaksin et al., 2016; Plaksin et al., 2014). A similar set of uncertainty in the directionality and border exists for the other parameters, here defined as falsifiable hypotheses.
| Directionality of TUS hypotheses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity (ISPPA brain) | Sonication duration | Duty cycle (DC) | Pulse repetition frequency (PRF) | |
| Enhancement weighted | Higher intensity (>1 W/cm2) | <500 ms | >30% | <10 Hz (e.g. theta-burst) |
| Suppression weighted | Lower intensity (<1 W/cm2) | >500 ms | <30% | ≥10 Hz |
Appendix 1—table 1
Human ‘online’ transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) studies categorized by probable enhancement or suppression.
Summarized are the TUS parameters reported in the human studies (inTUS_DATABASE_1–2025.csv) and their reported neurobiological effects categorized by likely excitatory or inhibitory effects. For independently confirmed effects, we cite the independent assessment source. Abbreviations of Brain Targets: Somatosensory Cortex (S1, S2); Primary Visual Cortex (V1); Primary Motor Cortex (M1); Ventro-Lateral Prefrontal Cortex (VLPFC); Ventral Capsule/Ventral Striatum (VC/VS); dorsal-Anterior Cingulate Cortex (dACC); Orbito Frontal Cortex (OFC); Thalamus-Ventral Posterolateral Nucleus (VPL); human Middle Temporal Area (hMT+); Nucleus Accumbens (NAcc); Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC); Anterior Insula (AI); Posterior Insula (PI); Entorhinal Cortex (ErC); Abbreviations of Measurements: Heartbeat Evoked Potential (HEP); Contact Heat Evoked Potential (CHEP); Heart Rate Variability (HRV); Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS); Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition (SICI); Intracortical Facilitation (ICF); rs-fMRI (Resting State functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging); 3 Tesla fMRI (3T); Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD); Electro Encephalography (EEG).
| Study | Target | FF (kHz) | PRF (Hz) | DC (%) | SD (s) | PD (ms) | ISPPA water (W/cm2) | ISPPA brain (W/cm2) | ISPTA brain (W/cm2) | Reported effect [independently characterized] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et al., 2015 | Hand region S1 | 250 | 500 | 50 | 0.3 | 1 | 3 | 0.7 | 0.35 | TUS enhanced somatosensory evoked potentials. Wang et al., 2019 |
| Lee et al., 2016a | S2 and S2+S1 | 210 | 500 | 50 | 0.50 | 1 | 35 | 8.80 | 4.40 | TUS elicited tactile sensations and enhanced somatosensory evoked potentials. Wang et al., 2019; Darmani et al., 2022 |
| Lee et al., 2016b | V1 | 270 | 500 | 50 | 0.30 | 1 | 16.60 | 11.60 | 5.80 | Simultaneous TUS and 3T fMRI resulted in increased BOLD signal in V1. With EEG: increased potentials (e.g. P100 and P200). Produced phosphene perception in some subjects. Zhang et al., 2021a |
| Ai et al., 2016 Exp 1 (3T) | Sensorimotor | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 24 | 6 | 2.16 | TUS in sensorimotor cortex led to focal BOLD activation. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Ai et al., 2016 Exp 2 (7T) | Caudate | 860 | 1000 | 50 | 0.50 | 0.5 | 24 | 6 | 3 | TUS in caudate led to focal BOLD activation in subcortical areas. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Ai et al., 2018 | M1 (thumb) | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 16.95 | 4.23 | 1.52 | Increased fMRI BOLD signal in motor cortex (M1) thumb representation during a cued tapping task. Wang et al., 2019; Di Biase et al., 2019 |
| Fine et al., 2020 | VLPFC | 500 | 1000 | 24 | 0.50 | 0.24 | 22.40 | 5.60 | 1.34 | TUS of right ventro-lateral PFC (VLPFC), enhanced frontal EEG potential (P300) for stop-trials in a stop signal task. (Enhanced inhibition action.) Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Yu et al., 2020 | M1 (leg area) | 500 | 3000 | 60 | 0.50 | 0.2 | 5.90 | 1.17 | 0.70 | Increased movement-related cortical activity when compared to sham, with the highest PRF used. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Liu et al., 2021 | S1 | 500 | 300 | 6 | 0.50 | 0.2 | 5.64 | 1.10 | 0.07 | TUS increased local excitability of S1 area EEG responses during sensory discrimination tasks. Early and late phase EEG potentials were enhanced. N300 potential amplitude was also enhanced. |
| Kuhn et al., 2023 | Entorhinal cortex | 650 | 100 | 5 | 30 | 0.5 | 57.60 | 14.40 | 0.72 | Increased fMRI activity in entorhinal cortex and functional connectivity. |
| Zhang et al., 2023 Excitatory protocol | M1 (hand area) | 500 | 2000 | 40 | 0.50 | 0.2 | 2.46 | 0.62 | 0.25 | Excitatory protocol, combining TUS +TMS of motor cortex increased M1 excitability and decreased intracortical inhibition. |
| Chou et al., 2025 Protocol A | VC/VS | 650 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 57.6 | 14.4 | 0.720 | Augmented putamen activation during reward task. Increased rs-fMRI functional connectivity with ACC and OFC. |
| AVERAGE | 490.8 | 909.2 | 34.3 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 22.6 | 1.8 | 6.2 | ||
| Legon et al., 2014 | S1 | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 23.9 | 6 | 2.2 | TUS to S1 attenuates somatosensory evoked potentials. Improved tactile discrimination task performance. |
| Mueller et al., 2014 | S1 | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 23.9 | 6 | 2.2 | Disrupted intrinsic brain activity and phases for beta, not for gamma. Zhang et al., 2021a |
| Legon et al., 2018a | Thalamus VPL | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 14.5 | 7.03 | 2.53 | Attenuation of somatosensory evoked component. Attenuation of alpha and beta power. Zhang et al., 2021a |
| Legon et al., 2018b | M1 | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 17.12 | 4.28 | 1.54 | Attenuation of motor evoked potential during single-pulse TMS. Attenuation of intracortical facilitation (ICF), unaffected SICI. |
| Fomenko et al., 2020 | M1 | 500 | 1000 | 10 | 0.50 | 0.1 | 9.26 | 2.32 | 0.232 | TMS motor evoked potential suppression in a dose-dependent manner and increase in short interval intracortical inhibition. Zhang et al., 2021a; Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Cain et al., 2021 Mode 1 | Globus pallidus | 650 | 100 | 5 | 30 | 0.5 | 57.6 | 14.40 | 0.72 | TUS decreased fMRI BOLD signal and within the brain network observed. |
| Xia et al., 2021 | M1 | 500 | 1000 | 30 | 0.50 | 0.3 | 9.26 | 2.32 | 0.69 | Inhibition of ipsilateral M1 potential after TUS. |
| Butler et al., 2022 | hMT+ | 500 | 1000 | 50 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 5.76 | 1.44 | 0.72 | TUS to visual area hMT +produced attenuation of visual motion EEG evoked potentials. |
| Kuhn et al., 2023 | Amygdala | 650 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 57.6 | 14.40 | 0.72 | Decreased functional inter-connectivity with amygdala. |
| Zhang et al., 2023 Inhibitory TUS | M1 (hand area) | 500 | 50 | 2 | 0.50 | 0.4 | 2.46 | 0.62 | 0.01 | Inhibitory protocol: TUS +TMS -->Increased short and long interval intracortical inhibition with reduced intracortical facilitation. |
| Peng et al., 2024 | NAc | 650 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 57.52 | 14.38 | 0.719 | TUS on left NAc inhibited activity of anterior and posterior regions of bilateral NAc, compared to sham. Increased functional connectivity between NAc and mPFC after TUS. |
| Strohman et al., 2024a | AI, PI | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 1 | 0.36 | 4.2 | 1.05 | 0.378 | TUS to PI produced reduction of EEG HEP relative to sham and relative to effects of TUS to dACC, in the 280 ms post R-peak, 650 ms post R-peak time windows, respectively. |
| Legon et al., 2024 | AI, PI | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 1 | 0.36 | 3.5 | 0.88 | 0.31 | TUS to AI and PI reduced amplitude of CHEP. TUS to AI increased HRV. TUS to PI reduced pain perception. |
| Chou et al., 2025 Protocol ErC | ErC | 650 | 100 | 5 | 30 | 0.5 | 57.6 | 14.4 | 0.72 | Decreased putamen activation during reward task. Decreased ErC perfusion. |
| AVERAGE | 542.9 | 662.1 | 23.4 | 9.0 | 1.0 | 24.6 | 1.0 | 6.4 |
Appendix 1—table 2
Human ‘offline’ transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) studies categorized by probable enhancement or suppression.
Summarized are the TUS parameters used in human studies (inTUS_DATABASE_1–2025.csv) aiming to induce longer-lasting ‘offline’ effects. Format as in Appendix 1—table 1. Abbreviations of Brain Targets: Dorso-Lateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC); Primary Motor Cortex (M1); dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex (dACC); Posterior Cingulate Cortex (PCC); Somatosensory Cortex (S1); Ventral Posterolateral Nucleus (VPL); Nucleus Accumbens (NAcc); Inferior Prefrontal Gyrus (IPFC); Inferior Frontal Gyrus (IFG); right Inferior Frontal Gyrus (rIFG); right-Medial Frontal Gyrus (rMFG). Abbreviations of Measurements: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS); Short-Interval Interhemispheric Inhibition (SIHI); Intracortical Facilitation (ICF); Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition (SICI); Short-Interval Intracortical Facilitation (SICF); Long-Term Potentiation (LTP); repetitive-Transcranial Ultrasound (rTUS); theta-burst TUS (tbTUS); resting-state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rs-fMRI); Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD); Electroencephalography (EEG); Motor Evoked Potential (MEP); Contact Heat Evoked Potential (CHEP); Reaction Time (RT); Heart Rate Variability (HRV); Default Mode Network (DMN).
| Study | Target | FF (kHz) | PRF (Hz) | DC (%) | SD (s) | PD (ms) | ISPPA water (W/cm2) | ISPPA brain (W/cm2) | ISPTA brain (W/cm2) | Reported effect [independently characterized] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monti et al., 2016 | Thalamus | 650 | 100 | 5 | 30 | 0.50 | 57.60 | 14.40 | 0.72 | One patient case study. Emergence from minimally conscious state three days after sonication. Recovery of motor and oromotor functions and full language comprehension. |
| Zhang et al., 2021b | Motor cortex | 500 | 100 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 8.05 | 2.84 | 0.14 | TUS-induced modulation of TMS motor evoked potentials lasted 30 min. Improved stop signal task performance. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Zeng et al., 2022 | Left M1 | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20.00 | 9.04 | 2.26 | 0.226 | Their Theta-burst TUS protocol: TUS + TMS increased corticospinal excitability, increased intracortical facilitation, and decreased short interval intracortical inhibition. LTP-like effects lasted 30–60 min. Samuel et al., 2022 |
| Zeng et al., 2022 | M1 | 500 | 1000 | 32 | 0.5 | 0.32 | 9.04 | 2.26 | 0.732 | Their rTUS protocol: Increased TMS motor evoked potentials. Samuel et al., 2022 |
| Samuel et al., 2022 | M1 | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20.00 | 9.04 | 2.26 | 0.226 | TUS + TMS tbTUS protocol increased motor evoked potentials, decreased short interval intracortical inhibition, and no changes in intracortical facilitation. |
| Ren et al., 2023 | M1 | 500 | 100 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 8.09 | 2.02 | 0.10 | TUS induced LTP-like plasticity in ipsilateral M1. Interhemispheric balance of M1 excitability modulated by TUS. |
| Zhai et al., 2023 | lDLPFC | 500 | 100 | 5 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 8.09 | 2.02 | 0.10 | TMS motor evoked potentials increased significantly after rTUS protocol to DLPFC, inducing LTP-like plasticity. Alleviated negative symptoms and improved cognitive performance in schizophrenic patients. |
| Yaakub et al., 2023 | dACC & PCC | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20.00 | 33.8 | 15 | 1.50 | Reduction in GABA levels in the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) lasted 30 min. Increased rsfMRI connectivity in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) & PCC lasted 50 min. TUS on PCC increased functional connectivity with the dACC. |
| Kim et al., 2023 | S1 | 250 | 1400 | 70 | 0.2 | 0.50 | 14.70 | 4.10 | 2.90 | This study produced evoked EEG TUS responses like somatosensory evoked potentials as well as resting-state functional connectivity changes that outlasted the sonication for 1 hr. |
| Kim et al., 2023 | VPL | 250 | 1400 | 70 | 0.2 | 0.50 | 9.10 | 3.40 | 2.40 | |
| Shamli Oghli et al., 2023 | M1 (hand area) | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 11.73 | 2.93 | 0.29 | tbTUS plasticity excitatory effects produced by this sonication protocol were reduced by channel blockers. |
| Ding et al., 2024 | M1 | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 6.76 | 1.69 | 0.17 | 1-Priming with 150 pulses of continuous TBS before tbTUS increased plasticity (MEP ampl.) for 90 min. 2-tbTUS only facilitated MEPs for upwards of 30 min. No difference in effects between 1 and 2, at 30 min post-tbTUS stimulation. |
| Xia et al., 2024 | Left M1 | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 11.73 | 2.93 | 0.29 | tbTUS to left M1 increased excitability of the MEP amplitude in the left M1 for a reported 30 min; increased SIHI from left to right M1; increased right M1 ICF but decreased excitability (MEP ampl.) of right M1. |
| Zeng et al., 2024 | Left M1 | 500 | 2-5-10 | 5-10-15 | 40-80-120 | 10-20-30-50 | 10 - 20 | 1.13 – 2.26 | 0.11 – 0.34 | PRF of 2Hz increased MEP for ~5min. PRF of 5Hz or 10Hz increased MEP for up to 60 min. PRF of 10Hz reduced SICI and enhanced SICF. All DC studied increased MEP for up to 90 min. For instance, DC of 5% and 15% reduced SICI and enhanced SICF. All SDs increased MEPs offline with SD of 120s for up to 90 min. SD of 40s reduced SICI. SD of 120s reduced SICI and enhanced SICF. PRF of 5Hz was reported to be optimal frequency leading to higher MEP amplitude. Higher DC and longer SDs were reported to lead to longer offline effects. |
| Yaakub et al., 2024 | NAcc & dACC | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 30 | 7.5 | 0.75 | TUS of the NAcc increased BOLD signal, related to reward expectation TUS to the dACC significantly increased BOLD signal related to reward delivery in dACC and PFC regions. |
| AVERAGE | 476.7 | 282.7 | 18.1 | 44.8 | 10.9 | 16.5 | 0.7 | 4.5 | ||
| Badran et al., 2020 | Anterior thalamus | 650 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 57.52 | 14.38 | 0.72 | Significant reduction of thermal pain sensitivity. TUS-induced antinociceptive effects. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Sanguinetti et al., 2020 | Fronto-temporal cortex | 500 | 40 | 0.5 | 30 | 0.13 | 54 | 13.5 | 0.07 | Decrease in functional connectivity (rsFMRI) in resting-state network between right Inferior frontal gyrus and left limbic areas. Increased FC between rIFG and rMFG. |
| Cain et al., 2022 | Central thalamus | 650 | 100 | 5 | 30 | 0.5 | 57.60 | 14.4 | 0.72 | BOLD signal decreased in frontal cortex and basal ganglia. Yuksel et al., 2023 |
| Forster et al., 2023a | l(PFG) | 500 | 40 | 0.5 | 120 | 0.13 | 160 | 40 | 0.20 | Decrease in EEG mid-frontal theta which lasted up to 90 min post-TUS. |
| Forster et al., 2023b | IFG | 500 | 40 | 0.5 | 120 | 0.13 | 160 | 40 | 0.20 | Inhibition of rIFG. |
| Bao et al., 2024 | M1 | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 9.52 | 2.38 | 0.24 | Reduced excitability (TMS-MEP) of M1 compared to sham, in 5 and 30 min after sonication. |
| Zadeh et al., 2024 | M1 | 250 | 10, 100, 1000 | 10 | 120 | 10, 1, 0.1 | 20 | 5 | 0.5 | PRF of 10 Hz decreased MEP lasted 30 min. PRF of 100 Hz decreased MEP lasted 60 min. No effects found with PRF of 1000 Hz or sham. |
| Atkinson-Clement et al., 2024 | Right-IFC | 500 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 20 | 54.51 | 13.63 | 0.83 | TUS of IFC reduced rsfMRI functional connectivity between IFC and post-central cortex compared to baseline. This was significantly correlated with decreased RT on GO trials. |
| Strohman et al., 2024b | dACC | 500 | 1000 | 36 | 1 | 0.36 | 4.34 | 1.085 | 0.39 | TUS to dACC attenuated CHEP P2 amplitude; increased HRV compared to sham; reduced pain perception. |
| Chen et al., 2024 | M1 | 500 | 1000 | 30 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 9.38 | 0.84 | 0.252 | TUS + TMS C (concurrent) led to inhibitory after-effects in subjects who showed online inhibition. MEPs were suppressed for up to 30 min after TUS + TMS C. TUS + TMS S (separated) led to non-significant inhibitory after-effect. No MEP suppression. |
| Lord et al., 2024 | PCC | 500 | 10.526 | 5.26% | 30 | 5 | 5.58 | 1.116 | 0.058 | TUS to PCC reduced functional connectivity of the DMN network assessed by rs-fMRI post-TUS. Subjective effects lasted 30 min to 1 hr post-TUS. |
| AVERAGE | 504.5 | 213.7 | 10.3 | 58.3 | 4.8 | 53.9 | 0.4 | 12.8 |
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Ultrasound neuromodulation hypotheses on the directionality of effects and community resource
eLife 13:RP100827.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.100827.4
