MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378782685 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/acda0c

Investigating the impact of skull vibrations on motor responses to focused ultrasound neuromodulation in small rodents and methods to mitigate them

2023· article· en· W4378782685 on OpenAlexafffund
Jake W Hesselink, Chris Krasnichuk, Amine Benaceur, Aidan P. Johnson, Siyun Li, Zelma H. T. Kiss, Samuel Pichardo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsNeuromodulationVibrationSkullMaterials scienceAmplitudePulse repetition frequencyBiomedical engineeringStimulationMedicineAcousticsPhysicsAnatomyComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective . Focused ultrasound (FUS) neuromodulation non-invasively alters brain activity, likely via acoustic radiation force with dynamics of the pulse repetition frequency (PRF). PRF impacts neuromodulation as well as indirect auditory activation, a confound linked to skull vibrations. This study aimed to minimize these vibrations, by adjusting and randomizing PRF, and determine their impact on FUS-induced motor activity. We hypothesized that: the skull would vibrate most at a specific PRF; randomizing PRF would reduce skull vibrations without affecting motor responses; and FUS would yield motor activity while actuator-induced skull vibrations would not. Approach . Three objectives were studied in parallel using C57Bl/6 mice ( n = number of mice used per objective). First, skull vibration amplitude, measured as a percentage of maximum amplitude per treatment, was recorded via contact microphone over a range of PRFs to assess the PRF-dependency of skull vibrations ( n = 19). Vibrations were then compared between random and fixed PRFs ( n = 15). Lastly, motor responses were compared between fixed 1.5 kHz PRF FUS, random PRF FUS, air-puff stimulation, sham stimulation, and vibration induction via piezoelectric actuator ( n = 30). Main Results. The study found amplitude peaked at 1.51 kHz (88.1 ± 11.5%), significantly higher than at 0.54 kHz (75.5 ± 15.1%; p = 0.0149). Random PRF reduced amplitude by 4.2% ( p = 0.0181). Motor response rates to actuator-induced skull vibrations at the PRF (5.73 ± 6.96%) and its third harmonic (22.9 ± 22.7%) were not significantly different than sham (14.1 ± 11.6%), but lower than FUS (70.2 ± 16.3%; p < 0.0001). Significance . Based on these results, PRF near 0.5 kHz may best avoid skull vibrations, while random PRF could be utilized to slightly reduce vibration amplitude. The results also suggested that skull vibrations likely do not significantly impact motor responses to FUS neuromodulation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207