4.7 Article

Transcranial ultrasound stimulation of the human motor cortex

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103429

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61976136, 61876108, 81822017, 31771215]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [19441907900, 18JC1420304]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission -Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant Support [20181715]
  4. Medicine and Engineering Interdisciplinary Research Fund of Shanghai Jiao Tong University [ZH2018ZDA30]
  5. Guangdong grant' Key technologies for treatment of brain disorders' [2018B030331001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that stimulating the human motor cortex using rTUS may produce long-lasting and statistically significant effects on motor cortex excitability and motor behavior, without observed harmful side effects.
It has been 40 years since the report of long-term synaptic plasticity on the rodent brain. Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) shows advantages in spatial resolution and penetration depth when compared with electrical or magnetic stimulation. The repetitive TUS (rTUS) can induce cortical excitability alteration on animals, and persit_lent aftereffects were observed. However, the effects of rTUS on synaptic plasticity in humans remain unelucidated. In the current study, we applied a 15-min rTUS protocol to stimulate left primary motor cortex (I-M1) in 24 male healthy participants. The single-pulsed transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked motor evoked potential and Stop-signal task was applied to measure the rTUS aftereffects. Here, we report that cor. ruing the human motor cortex using rTUS may produce long-lasting and statistical) significant effects on motor cortex excitability as well as motor behavior, without harmful side effects observed. These findings suggest a considerable potential of rTUS in cortical plasticity modulation and clinical intervention for impulsivity-related disorders.

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

4.7
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