4.5 Article

HIGH-RESOLUTION FOCUSED ULTRASOUND NEUROMODULATION INDUCES LIMB-SPECIFIC MOTOR RESPONSES IN MICE IN VIVO

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 998-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.12.013

关键词

Brain stimulation; Focused ultrasound; Locomotion; Motor response; Neuromodulation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) through National Cancer Institute [R01 EB027576]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilized high-resolution focused ultrasound to induce motor responses in anesthetized mice, revealing target-specific differences in electromyographic characteristics. Even brain targets separated by as little as 1 mm can modulate the responses in individual limbs to different extents.
Ultrasound can modulate activity in the central nervous system, including the induction of motor responses in rodents. Recent studies investigating ultrasound-induced motor movements have described mostly bilateral limb responses, but quantitative evaluations have failed to reveal lateralization or differences in response characteristics between separate limbs or how specific brain targets dictate distinct limb responses. This study uses high-resolution focused ultrasound (FUS) to elicit motor responses in anesthetized mice in vivo and four-limb electromyography (EMG) to evaluate the latency, duration and power of paired motor responses (n = 1768). The results indicate that FUS generates target-specific differences in electromyographic characteristics and that brain targets separated by as little as 1 mm can modulate the responses in individual limbs differentially. Exploiting these differences may provide a tool for quantifying the susceptibility of underlying neural volumes to FUS, understanding the functioning of the targeted neuroanatomy and aiding in mechanistic studies of this non-invasive neuromodulation technique. (E-mail: ek2191@columbia.edu) (C) 2020 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据