Biophysical effects and neuromodulatory dose of transcranial ultrasonic stimulation.

Transcranial ultrasonic stimulation (TUS) has the potential to usher in a new era for human neuroscience by allowing spatially precise and high-resolution non-invasive targeting of both deep and superficial brain regions. Currently, fundamental research on the mechanisms of interaction between ultrasound and neural tissues is progressing in parallel with application-focused research. However, a major hurdle in the wider use of TUS is the selection of optimal parameters to enable safe and effective neuromodulation in humans. In this paper, we will discuss the major factors that determine both the safety and efficacy of TUS. We will discuss the thermal and mechanical biophysical effects of ultrasound, which underlie its biological effects, in the context of their relationships with tunable parameters. Based on this knowledge of biophysical effects, and drawing on concepts from radiotherapy, we propose a framework for conceptualising TUS dose.

The relationship between parameters and effects in transcranial ultrasonic stimulation.

Transcranial ultrasonic stimulation (TUS) is rapidly gaining traction for non-invasive human neuromodulation, with a pressing need to establish protocols that maximise neuromodulatory efficacy. In this review, we aggregate and examine empirical evidence for the relationship between tunable TUS parameters and in vitro and in vivo outcomes. Based on this multiscale approach, TUS researchers can make better informed decisions about optimal parameter settings. Importantly, we also discuss the challenges involved in extrapolating results from prior empirical work to future interventions, including the translation of protocols between models and the complex interaction between TUS protocols and the brain. A synthesis of the empirical evidence suggests that larger effects will be observed at lower frequencies within the sub-MHz range, higher intensities and pressures than commonly administered thus far, and longer pulses and pulse train durations. Nevertheless, we emphasise the need for cautious interpretation of empirical data from different experimental paradigms when basing protocols on prior work as we advance towards refined TUS parameters for human neuromodulation.

Non-invasive brain stimulation modulates GABAergic activity in neurofibromatosis 1.

Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is a single-gene disorder associated with cognitive phenotypes common to neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism. GABAergic dysregulation underlies working memory impairments seen in NF1. This mechanistic experimental study investigates whether application of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) can modulate GABA and working memory in NF1. Thirty-one NF1 adolescents 11-18 years, were recruited to this single-blind sham-controlled cross-over randomized trial. AtDCS or sham stimulation was applied to the left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) and MR Spectroscopy was collected before and after intervention in the left DLPFC and occipital cortex. Task-related functional MRI was collected before, during, and after stimulation. Higher baseline GABA+ in the left DLPFC was associated with faster response times on baseline working memory measures. AtDCS was seen to significantly reduced GABA+ and increase brain activation in the left DLPFC as compared to sham stimulation. Task performance was worse in the aTDCS group during stimulation but no group differences in behavioural outcomes were observed at the end of stimulation. Although our study suggests aTDCS modulates inhibitory activity in the DLPFC, further work is needed to determine whether repeated sessions of atDCS and strategies such as alternating current stimulation offer a better therapeutic approach.

tDCS induced GABA change is associated with the simulated electric field in M1, an effect mediated by grey matter volume in the MRS voxel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has wide ranging applications in neuro-behavioural and physiological research, and in neurological rehabilitation. However, it is currently limited by substantial inter-subject variability in responses, which may be explained, at least in part, by anatomical differences that lead to variability in the electric field (E-field) induced in the cortex. Here, we tested whether the variability in the E-field in the stimulated cortex during anodal tDCS, estimated using computational simulations, explains the variability in tDCS induced changes in GABA, a neurophysiological marker of stimulation effect. METHODS: Data from five previously conducted MRS studies were combined. The anode was placed over the left primary motor cortex (M1, 3 studies, N = 24) or right temporal cortex (2 studies, N = 32), with the cathode over the contralateral supraorbital ridge. Single voxel spectroscopy was performed in a 2x2x2cm voxel under the anode in all cases. MRS data were acquired before and either during or after 1 mA tDCS using either a sLASER sequence (7T) or a MEGA-PRESS sequence (3T). sLASER MRS data were analysed using LCModel, and MEGA-PRESS using FID-A and Gannet. E-fields were simulated in a finite element model of the head, based on individual structural MR images, using SimNIBS. Separate linear mixed effects models were run for each E-field variable (mean and 95th percentile; magnitude, and components normal and tangential to grey matter surface, within the MRS voxel). The model included effects of time (pre or post tDCS), E-field, grey matter volume in the MRS voxel, and a 3-way interaction between time, E-field and grey matter volume. Additionally, we ran a permutation analysis using PALM to determine whether E-field anywhere in the brain, not just in the MRS voxel, correlated with GABA change. RESULTS: In M1, higher mean E-field magnitude was associated with greater anodal tDCS-induced decreases in GABA (t(24) = 3.24, p = 0.003). Further, the association between mean E-field magnitude and GABA change was moderated by the grey matter volume in the MRS voxel (t(24) = -3.55, p = 0.002). These relationships were consistent across all E-field variables except the mean of the normal component. No significant relationship was found between tDCS-induced GABA decrease and E-field in the temporal voxel. No significant clusters were found in the whole brain analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the electric field induced by tDCS within the brain is variable, and is significantly related to anodal tDCS-induced decrease in GABA, a key neurophysiological marker of stimulation. These findings strongly support individualised dosing of tDCS, at least in M1. Further studies examining E-fields in relation to other outcome measures, including behaviour, will help determine the optimal E-fields required for any desired effects.

Standing task difficulty related increase in agonist-agonist and agonist-antagonist common inputs are driven by corticospinal and subcortical inputs respectively.

In standing, coordinated activation of lower extremity muscles can be simplified by common neural inputs to muscles comprising a functional synergy. We examined the effect of task difficulty on common inputs to agonist-agonist (AG-AG) pairs supporting direction specific reciprocal muscle control and agonist-antagonist (AG-ANT) pairs supporting stiffness control. Since excessive stiffness is energetically costly and limits the flexibility of responses to perturbations, compared to AG-ANT, we expected greater AG-AG common inputs and a larger increase with increasing task difficulty. We used coherence analysis to examine common inputs in three frequency ranges which reflect subcortical/spinal (0-5 and 6-15 Hz) and corticospinal inputs (6-15 and 16-40 Hz). Coherence was indeed higher in AG-AG compared to AG-ANT muscles in all three frequency bands, indicating a predilection for functional synergies supporting reciprocal rather than stiffness control. Coherence increased with increasing task difficulty, only in AG-ANT muscles in the low frequency band (0-5 Hz), reflecting subcortical inputs and only in AG-AG group in the high frequency band (16-40 Hz), reflecting corticospinal inputs. Therefore, common neural inputs to both AG-AG and AG-ANT muscles increase with difficulty but are likely driven by different sources of input to spinal alpha motor neurons.

In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific.

Reductions in the base of support (BOS) make standing difficult and require adjustments in the neural control of sway. In healthy young adults, we determined the effects of reductions in mediolateral (ML) BOS on peroneus longus (PL) motor evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and long interval intracortical inhibition (LICI) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We also examined whether participant-specific neural excitability influences the responses to increasing standing difficulty. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that with increasing standing difficulty MEP size increased, SICI decreased (both p < 0.05) and ICF trended to decrease (p = 0.07). LICI decreased only in a sub-set of participants, demonstrating atypical facilitation. Spearman's Rank Correlation showed a relationship of ρ = 0.50 (p = 0.001) between MEP size and ML center of pressure (COP) velocity. Measures of M1 excitability did not correlate with COP velocity. LICI and ICF measured in the control task correlated with changes in LICI and ICF, i.e., the magnitude of response to increasing standing difficulty. Therefore, corticospinal excitability as measured by MEP size contributes to ML sway control while cortical facilitation and inhibition are likely involved in other aspects of sway control while standing. Additionally, neural excitability in standing is determined by an interaction between task difficulty and participant-specific neural excitability.

Increasing mediolateral standing sway is associated with increasing corticospinal excitability, and decreasing M1 inhibition and facilitation.

In standing, corticospinal excitability increases and primary motor cortex (M1) inhibition decreases in response to anterior posterior or direction unspecific manipulations that increase task difficulty. However, mediolateral (ML) sway control requires greater active neural involvement. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to determine the pattern of change in neural excitability when ML postural task difficulty is manipulated and to test whether the neural excitability is proportional to ML sway magnitude across conditions. Tibialis anterior corticospinal excitability was quantified using motor evoked potential (MEP) and postural sway was indexed using ML center of pressure (COP) velocity. Additionally, we examined inhibition and facilitation processes in the primary motor cortex using the paired pulse short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) techniques respectively. Measurements were repeated in four conditions with quiet stance as a control. Differences between conditions were tested using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs, on log transformed data. Associations were quantified using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient. There was a significant main effect of condition on all the neural excitability measures with MEP (p<0.001) being highest in the most difficult condition, and SICI (p=0.01), ICF (p<0.001) being lowest in the most difficult condition. Increasing ML COP velocity was significantly associated with increasing MEP amplitude (r=0.68, p<0.001), but decreasing SICI (r=0.24, p=0.03) and ICF (r=-0.54, p<0.001). Our results show that both corticospinal and M1 excitability in standing are scaled in proportion to ML task difficulty.