While considering influence on CNS neuromodulation (!!), we can:

- Eliminate near-field intensity peaks in the scalp
- Use larger aperture areas
- Apply ramping
- Deliver equivalent doses via longer, lower intensity pulses
- Apply higher PRFs (≥200 Hz)
- Apply higher f0 (e.g., 500 vs 250 kHz)

We applied TUS through the temples and measured participants' somatosensory experience at the stimulation site (VAS/threshold). We tested several stimulation protocols across three different transducers to identify avenues for confound mitigation.

While considering influence on CNS neuromodulation (!!), we can:
- Eliminate near-field intensity peaks in the scalp
- Use larger aperture areas
- Apply ramping
- Deliver equivalent doses via longer, lower intensity pulses
- Apply higher PRFs (≥200 Hz)
- Apply higher f0 (e.g., 500 vs 250 kHz)

We applied TUS through the temples and measured participants' somatosensory experience at the stimulation site (VAS/threshold). We tested several stimulation protocols across three different transducers to identify avenues for confound mitigation.

Importantly, when M1 was effectively targeted, we still didn't find evidence for offline excitatory effects!

We replicated the same TMS hotspot-based targeting approach for TUS as prior work, but by introducing post-hoc simulations we showed that this method can lead to unacceptable M1 targeting variability as compared to structurally/functionally informed targeting.

Effects of 5Hz-rTUS (tbTUS) on corticospinal excitability are less robust than we initially thought. Check out my new preprint with @drcarysevans.bsky.social and Po-Yu Fong showing that offline excitatory TUS-TMS effects don't replicate. Thread below 👇 doi.org/10.1101/2024...

In this multi-center collaboration (N=67), we show that seminal online motor inhibitory effects of 1000Hz TUS are caused by indirect auditory stimulation, not direct ultrasonic neuromodulation. Even seemingly dose-dependent effects can be driven by confounds.