Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

An open-source framework for predicting ultrasound neuromodulation: bridging tissue elastomechanics and neuron firing dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A computational pipeline now carries transcranial ultrasound from skull to per-voxel neuron firing maps, placing six proposed mechanisms on one shared neuron model.

desk verdict A genuinely useful framework whose headline firing zone is an uncalibrated working point; the abstract should carry that caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06321 v1 pith:DNHFITTU submitted 2026-08-06 physics.med-ph

Gianmarco Pinton This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords transcranialfocusedultrasoundneuromodulationHodgkin-Huxleymechanosensitiveionchannelsstrain-to-tensioncouplingper-voxelfiringmapscomputationalframeworksafety
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents an end-to-end computational framework that predicts, voxel by voxel in an anatomically registered head volume, which neurons fire during transcranial focused ultrasound and through which biophysical pathway. It chains acoustic propagation, shear-wave displacement, bioheat diffusion, a strain-to-membrane-tension conversion, and a multi-compartment Hodgkin-Huxley neuron whose mechanosensitive, cavitation-coupled, calcium-coupled, thermosensitive, astrocytic, and synaptic modules are interchangeable. The central claim is that this is the first framework to exercise all six candidate mechanisms on a common neuron model with traceable per-parameter source classification, so that differences in predicted firing can be attributed to the mechanism rather than to incidental modelling choices. Applied to a theta-burst sonication through a human skull specimen targeting the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, it predicts a focal firing zone of approximately 8,500 cubic millimetres and a peak firing rate of 300 Hz, while staying within consensus safety envelopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the strain-to-tension conversion T = K_A * alpha * epsilon_eq, which turns voxel-scale von Mises equivalent strain into lipid-bilayer membrane tension, feeding a two-state Boltzmann-gated channel population (Piezo1 and K2P channels) embedded in a three-compartment Hodgkin-Huxley neuron with dendrite, soma, and axon-initial-segment compartments. Around this core, six candidate mechanisms are implemented as interchangeable modules on the same neuron, and every numerical parameter is classified by source as literature-anchored, calibrated, assumed, estimated, or derived, so sensitivity of predicted firing to each parameter is traceable.

What would settle it

Record high-density extracellular firing from cortex during a 500 kHz, roughly 0.5 MPa transcranial $\theta$-burst exposure matching the simulated protocol, and compare the spatial extent and per-voxel spike counts against the predicted 5,468 firing voxels and approximately 8,500 $mm^{3}$ zone; if firing appears only near the acoustic focus when $\alpha$ is low, or saturates across a much larger region when $\alpha$ is high, the $\alpha$ = 1000 working point is falsified, and paired shear-wave elastography with single-cell mechano-current recordings would provide the direct calibration needed to replace it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central contribution is a single volumetric spatio-temporal pipeline that maps a transcranial acoustic field to per-voxel neural firing maps, resolving firing jointly with the acoustic, elastic, and thermal field histories that drive it. The demonstration run, at the paper's chosen working point of the multi-scale coupling factor $\alpha$ = 1000, predicts 5,468 firing brain voxels over a 20 ms ON window, with an iso-25 firing volume of about 8,523 $mm^{3}$, substantially larger than the acoustic -6 dB focal volume of 161 $mm^{3}$, because the strain field elongates the firing zone along the beam axis. On the same real strain field, the framework's mechanism comparison shows that a three-compartment dendrite-soma-AIS neuron is necessary for firing where a single-compartment baseline stays subthreshold, and that the Piezo1-inactivation/calcium/SK pathway reduces firing by about 30-33% at the canonical working point, producing a focus-to-ring spatial signature. The paper also reports that intramembrane cavitation and thermosensor pathways contribute marginally at the sub-MPa, body-temperature regime, while the astrocytic relay predicts a slow, duty-by-on-time accumulating drive that remains below recruitment threshold in this protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The entire absolute firing prediction rests on the unmeasured multiplier alpha that converts tissue strain into membrane tension, which the paper brackets from about 200 to 2000 and sets to 1000 for the headline numbers, with the sensitivity analysis showing that plus or minus 25 percent in the companion modulus K_A changes spike count by -59 percent and +89 percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mechanism hypotheses for ultrasound neuromodulation can now be compared on a single neuron model and a single acoustic field, so disagreements between candidates are attributable to the mechanism rather than to different modelling choices.
  • Per-voxel firing maps give spatially resolved, falsifiable predictions that can be tested against high-density extracellular recordings in the same exposure conditions.
  • The framework ties acoustic exposure to cellular firing, enabling quantitative safety assessment that includes firing dose alongside the conventional thermal and mechanical indices.
  • The source-classified sensitivity table identifies the Piezo1 half-activation tension and the strain-to-tension product K_A * alpha as the dominant uncertainties, motivating targeted calibration experiments.
  • Cell-type-resolved mechanism identification becomes tractable by re-running the same field under different neuron-type profiles and comparing predicted firing topologies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if K_A * alpha is calibrated by paired elastography and single-cell mechano-current recordings, the framework would turn the exposure-to-firing relationship into a quantitative fingerprint that could distinguish activation-driven from inactivation-dominated recruitment in living tissue.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted focus-to-ring redistribution under Piezo1 inactivation is a shape-based signature robust to the uncalibrated tension scale, and would be a stronger experimental test than absolute spike counts because it does not depend on the overall gain.
  • Editorial inference: the astrocytic relay's distinctive duty-times-on-time accumulation could be tested by comparing firing maps under protocols that hold total energy fixed but vary duty cycle and ON-window duration; the paper's model predicts the relay's contribution grows with cumulative ON time while channel pathways track per-pulse drive.
  • Editorial inference: because the pipeline accepts any compatible upstream pressure, displacement, and temperature fields, the same cellular stage could be coupled to other acoustic solvers or experimental field maps, making the firing-prediction layer a reusable comparator across the field.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an open-source, end-to-end computational framework that couples nonlinear full-wave acoustic propagation, viscoelastic shear-wave propagation, Pennes bioheat diffusion, a linear strain-to-tension bilayer conversion, and a multi-compartment Hodgkin–Huxley neuron carrying six interchangeable mechanotransduction modules. The pipeline produces anatomy-registered per-voxel firing maps, demonstrated on a theta-burst transcranial sonication through a micro-CT human skull targeting the left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. The headline demonstration reports a focal firing zone of approximately 8,500 mm^3 (5,468 firing voxels) at a chosen working point α=1000, and a mechanism-comparison sweep over five scenarios is used to compare Piezo1-only, cavitation, calcium/SK, TRP, and combined pathways. All parameters are classified by source, and a ±25% sensitivity analysis identifies the Piezo1 half-activation tension T_1/2 and the strain-to-tension product K_A·α as the dominant uncertainties.

Significance. The framework addresses a real gap: linking transcranial exposure metrics to per-voxel cellular outcomes, with explicit mechanism interchangeability and falsifiable spatial predictions. Strengths include the open-source implementation with unit tests and bit-for-bit regression checks, RK4 convergence verification, a per-parameter source classification, and the focus-to-ring topology under Piezo1 inactivation, which the authors correctly argue is robust to the uncalibrated tension scale. The main weakness is that the headline firing-zone numbers are fully determined by uncalibrated working-point choices (α=1000 and an elevated Piezo1 conductance), and the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows these numbers would collapse or saturate across the literature bracket. The framework is a useful scaffold, but the quantitative demonstration is not yet a calibrated prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §3.2, Table 2] The headline claim of 'approximately 8,500 mm^3' firing volume and 5,468 firing voxels is computed at the α=1000 working point of Eq. (6), with K_A·α an uncalibrated modelling-assumption pair. The paper's own supplementary §S9.4.1 states that α≲460 leaves at most the focal voxel firing and α≳2000 saturates the zone. The abstract and conclusion quote the numeric result without the working-point caveat, which is misleading because the number is not robust within the paper's own stated literature bracket. Please re-frame the headline as a working-point illustration with the α-bracket range, or calibrate K_A·α before presenting quantitative predictions.
  2. [§4.1] The statement that differences in predicted firing between candidates can be attributed 'unambiguously to the mechanism rather than to incidental modelling choices' is too strong. The mechanism-comparison sweep in §3.3 operates at strain levels placing the focal voxel on the steep Boltzmann knee (T≈2.42×T_1/2 at the canonical point), where Table 3 shows ±25% in K_A changes spike count by −59%/+89%. Since α and K_A are unmeasured, the relative ordering and magnitudes of scenario differences are contingent on the chosen working point; the unambiguous-attribution claim is not supported by the presented sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Table 3, §3.4] The sensitivity analysis reports only ±25% perturbations, but the dominant uncertainty, K_A·α, spans a 10-fold literature bracket (α∈[200,2000], §S9.4.1). A ±25% K_A shift therefore substantially understates the plausible range of firing outcomes. Please include a main-text tabulation (or prominent figure) of firing-voxel count and iso-volume across the full α bracket, so the reader can see the range of the headline numbers rather than a single point.
  4. [§3.2, Table 2 caption] The canonical run elevates Piezo1 conductance density 'above the library defaults...to place the focal voxel at the Boltzmann working point.' This is a second free working-point choice, in addition to K_A·α, that directly sets the absolute firing count. The paper should disclose this tuning explicitly in the main text (not only in the table caption) and report the sensitivity of the firing zone to g_bar within its plausible physiological range, since the headline numbers depend on both choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The validations in §3.1 are largely directional/qualitative; please state this explicitly in the main text to avoid implying quantitative reproduction of the cited experiments.
  2. [Figure 8] In panel (b), the per-panel numeric annotations are described as cumulative spike counts on the displayed slice; consider clarifying in the caption whether these are sums over the slice only, as the reader may otherwise compare them to the whole-volume counts in Table 2.
  3. [Table 3] The three Heimburg–Jackson rows use a different output metric (dimensionless excitability ξ) than the other rows; add a footnote explaining this difference and the sign convention.
  4. [Abstract] There are several typographical spacing errors (e.g., 'millimetrespatialresolution') that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the firing-zone headline is a conditional output at an explicitly stated alpha=1000 working point, and the paper's own body and supplementary label it as uncalibrated.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equation 6, T = K_A * alpha * epsilon_eq, is a constitutive conversion from a separately computed strain field; the firing-zone volume is a simulation output, not a quantity fitted to a target. The paper repeatedly and explicitly states that alpha and K_A are modelling assumptions and that absolute spike counts are presented at a working point rather than as calibrated absolutes: Section 3.4 says 'we therefore present the headline firing numbers at alpha=1000 as a single working point on the literature-bracketed sweep rather than as a calibrated absolute', Section 4.2 says 'the predicted absolute spike counts depend on the product K_A * alpha', and Supplementary S9.4.1 quantifies the bracket (alpha < 460 collapses firing, alpha > 2000 saturates). This is an uncalibrated-gain or correctness concern, not a circular prediction: no parameter is fitted to a firing-zone measurement and then renamed as a prediction. The elevated Piezo1 conductances in Section 3.2 are also disclosed as a means to place the focal voxel at the Boltzmann working point, but the resulting spatial zone is still produced by the strain field and neuron dynamics rather than being identical to the chosen parameters by construction. The self-citations to the group's Fullwave and reduced shear-FDTD solvers are implementation tools, not the load-bearing conceptual premise; the framework explicitly accepts any compatible upstream solver, and the cellular-level claims are anchored to external benchmarks such as AIS-first initiation, NICE duty-cycle direction, Piezo1 inactivation timescale, SK-mediated inhibition, and the TRPV1 Q10 floor. The abstract's unqualified 'predicting a focal firing zone of approximately 8,500 mm^3' is an overstatement that omits the paper's own working-point caveat, but omitting a caveat is not circularity under the standards applied here.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger shows the framework's absolute predictions rest on an unusually transparent set of assumptions: the linear strain-to-tension bridge with an unmeasured gain (alpha, 200-2000), a homogeneous Kelvin-Voigt brain, elevated mechanosensitive conductances tuned to the Boltzmann knee, and several calibrated constants (k_mechano, TRPV1 k_T, NICE leaflet walls) with qualitative targets only. The paper classifies each parameter by source, which is the honest part of the design, but the honest count is high: at least eight free or hand-set parameters enter the demonstrated firing numbers. None of these is an invented physical entity; alpha is the closest to one.

free parameters (8)
  • Multi-scale coupling factor alpha = 1000 (canonical working point; literature bracket 200-2000)
    Bridges voxel-scale strain to bilayer tension in Eq. 6; no direct measurement exists. The canonical value is motivated in S9.4.1 from dendrite-heavy Piezo1 density and viscoelastic stress concentration. Table 3 shows it is co-dominant for absolute spike counts.
  • Bilayer area-expansion modulus K_A = 0.25 N/m (midpoint of the 0.1-0.5 N/m range)
    Recorded as an assumption; only the product K_A times alpha is identifiable. A plus or minus 25% shift moves the spike count by -59% and +89% (Table 3).
  • Piezo1 macroscopic conductance density g_bar = 0.1 mS/cm2 in canonical run, 0.05 mS/cm2 in sweep, library default 0.005
    Elevated 'to place the focal voxel at the Boltzmann working point' (Section 3.2). The S1-versus-S2 'necessity' result depends on this tuning.
  • Piezo1 inactivation half-tension T1/2,i = 4.5 mN/m
    Classified Assumption in Table S3. Sets the focus-to-ring suppression signature of scenarios S4 and S5.
  • TRPA1 mechanogating T1/2 and delta_A = 6.0 mN/m and 15 nm2
    Classified Estimate; placed between the Piezo1 and TRAAK values as a best guess, with no tension-clamp fit existing (S7).
  • k_mechano (voltage-gated activation shift) = 0.3 mV per mN/m
    Calibrated to produce a mV-scale shift and a tens-of-percent current change; not directly tabulated by the source paper (Table S17).
  • TRPV1 Boltzmann steepness k_T = 1.5 degrees C
    Calibrated so the simulated Q10 exceeds the Caterina Q10 of 20 floor (S6).
  • Post-FDTD pressure rescale factor = 1.087x
    Applied linearly to land the in-brain peak pressure at Yaakub's reported 0.50 MPa (S9.4.1 and Table 2 note). A normalization to a literature target; disclosed and argued exact for linear propagation.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Membrane tension is a linear scalar function of voxel-scale von Mises equivalent strain: T = K_A * alpha * epsilon_eq (Eq. 6).
    The central mechanotransduction hypothesis; no derivation from bilayer mechanics is given, and alpha is unmeasured. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Brain tissue behaves as a homogeneous Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic solid (shear modulus 4580 Pa, viscosity 0.5 Pa.s).
    Shear-FDTD solver input; ignores anisotropy, heterogeneity, and perfusion coupling (Sections 2.2.2 and 3.2).
  • domain assumption Pennes bioheat with fixed perfusion describes the thermal field, with skull absorption fraction 0.30 referenced near 1 MHz and not frequency-scaled for 0.5 MHz.
    Section 2.2.3. The paper notes the f_abs frequency dependence is not separately scaled and that a sweep of f_abs leaves brain Delta-T essentially unchanged.
  • domain assumption Mechanosensitive channels obey two-state Boltzmann gating with tension-independent activation time constants.
    Eq. 7 and S2. The bell-shaped tau(T) form is discarded based on one patch-clamp reference (23).
  • domain assumption k_BT is held at its 25 C value for Boltzmann gating in 37 C simulations.
    Disclosed in Section 2.4 as an approximately 4% effect, justified because rescaling without re-fitting would shift the Boltzmann curve.
  • domain assumption Auto-selected bowl placement on the outer-skull mesh is biomechanically representative of real acoustic coupling.
    Perpendicular-aim residual of 0.65 mm; no scalp-softening or skin-contact modeling is included (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The three-compartment dendrite-soma-AIS lumping captures the features relevant to firing maps.
    Active dendritic spikes, full morphology, and myelinated saltatory conduction are out of scope (Section 4.2).
invented entities (1)
  • Multi-scale coupling factor alpha
    purpose: Dimensionless gain converting far-field tissue strain to bilayer area change in Eq. 6.
    No direct measurement exists. The paper brackets 200-2000 from planar-bilayer preparations and picks 1000 for the cortical demonstration. It is a bridging constant rather than a physical object, recorded as an assumption in Table S10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An open-source framework for predicting ultrasound neuromodulation: bridging tissue elastomechanics and neuron firing dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNHFITTU

@misc{pith2026260806321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An open-source framework for predicting ultrasound neuromodulation: bridging tissue elastomechanics and neuron firing dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNHFITTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06321}
}
read the original abstract

Transcranial focused ultrasound is a non-invasive neuromodulation modality with millimetre-scale resolution, but its biophysical mechanism of action remains unresolved. Exposure is conventionally specified by transducer surface or derated focal pressure, quantities only indirectly related to what matters for therapy: which neurons fire and through which pathway. We address this gap with an end-to-end computational framework that maps a transcranial acoustic field to per-voxel neural firing maps registered to anatomy. The pipeline couples heterogeneous nonlinear full-wave acoustic propagation, viscoelastic shear-wave propagation, Pennes bioheat diffusion, a bilayer-mechanics conversion from tissue strain to membrane tension, and a multi-compartment Hodgkin-Huxley neuron carrying mechanosensitive, cavitation-coupled, calcium-coupled, thermosensitive, astrocytic-gliotransmitter, and mechanosensitive-synaptic pathways. Six candidate mechanisms are implemented as interchangeable components on a shared neuron model, so their firing predictions can be compared directly on the same field, and every numerical parameter is classified by source and bracketed by sensitivity analysis. We demonstrate the framework on a theta-burst sonication delivered through a micro-CT human-skull specimen targeting the left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, predicting a focal firing zone of approximately 8,500 mm^3 at a focal thermal rise well within ITRUSST consensus safety envelopes. The principal output is a per-voxel firing-volume map resolved jointly with the acoustic, elastic, and thermal field histories that drive it, giving spatially resolved, falsifiable predictions that are testable against high-density extracellular recordings and support parameter estimation, cell-type-resolved mechanism identification, and quantitative safety assessment for ultrasound neuromodulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06321 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. End-to-end simulation pipeline. An upstream Fullwave 2 solver produces the pressure field p(x, t), which branches into two pathways. Mechanical. Radiation force b(x) drives a shear FDTD solver to produce tissue displacement u(x, t), from which the strain tensor and von Mises equivalent strain εeq(x) are extracted. Thermal. The volumetric heat source Q(x) is computed from acoustic absorption, and the Pennes bioheat e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Auto-pick placement aimed at the left dACC on the Halle micro-CT skull. Top row. Orthogonal slice views with the bowl outline drawn in plane. Bottom row. Three 3-D camera angles (lateral, anterior, superior) with the bowl wireframe (steelblue), outer-bone surface (grey point cloud), pial brain mesh (translucent tan), target ROI (lime, Harvard–Oxford anterior-cingulate label warped to subject space via the SyN MNI-to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fullwave 2 (acoustic) output and the parallel Pennes thermal branch driven by it. Top. Three orthogonal slices of focal intensity in dB re max (skull mask contoured in white). Bottom. Three orthogonal ∆T slices through the global peak-temperature voxel at the end of the 80 s session (left, skull contoured in cyan), and per-voxel ∆T traces over the session at the global peak voxel (crimson, in skull, 0.94 K), the bra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mechanical pipeline outputs. Top. Acoustic radiation-force body-force density |FARF| on three orthogonal slices through the brain-restricted peak voxel, the volumetric body force F = 2αI/c that drives the shear-FDTD solver. Bottom. Resulting transverse displacement |ux…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From mechanical drive to per-voxel firing. Top. Membrane tension T = KA α εeq on three orthogonal mid-planes through the peak-tension voxel at end-of-pulse, the proximal input to the mechanosensitive Boltzmann gates. Middle. Time-to-first-spike on three orthogonal slic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Within-burst recruitment dynamics. Top six rows. Instantaneous membrane tension T(t) and cumulative spike count per voxel at five within-burst times (t = 4, 8, 12, 16, 19.9 ms), each on three orthogonal slices (x–y, x–z, y–z) through the brain-restricted peak voxel. Te…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mechanosensitive gating curves used in this simulation. Solid blue, Piezo1 activation Po(T) (T1/2 = 2.7 mN/m, ∆A = 18 nm2 ). Dotted blue, Piezo1 inactivation i∞(T) (T1/2,i = 4.5 mN/m). Dashed blue, Piezo1 effective drive Po · i∞, which peaks at T ≈ 3 mN/m and falls off…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mechanism-comparison sweep on the real Halle / dACC strain field. (a) Total spike count over a 20 ms window as a function of peak deviatoric strain, for five mechanism scenarios. The field is uniformly rescaled to walk the focal-voxel tension from sub-threshold through…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Angular Spectrum Method for Nonlinear Propagation in Heterogeneous Tissue with Immersed Sources for Ultrasound

    physics.med-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modified angular spectrum solver with obliquity corrections, shock-capturing nonlinearity, and plane-by-plane curved-source injection matches full-wave simulations of transcranial and bowl-transducer ultrasound to w...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deffieux, Y

    T. Deffieux, Y. Younan, N. Wattiez, M. Tanter, P. Pouget, and J.-F. Aubry. Low-intensity focused ultrasound modulates monkey visuomotor behavior.Current Biology, 23(23):2430–2433, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Legon, T

    W. Legon, T. F. Sato, A. Opitz, J. Mueller, A. Barbour, A. Williams, and W. J. Tyler. Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates the activity of primary somatosensory cortex in humans.Nature Neuroscience, 17(2):322–329, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Tufail, A

    Y. Tufail, A. Matyushov, N. Baldwin, M. L. Tauchmann, J. Georges, A. Yoshihiro, S. I. H. Tillery, and W. J. Tyler. Transcranial pulsed ultrasound stimulates intact brain circuits.Neuron, 66(5):681– 694, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Verhagen, C

    L. Verhagen, C. Gallea, D. Folloni, C. Constans, D. E. A. Jensen, H. Ahnine, L. Roumazeilles, M. Santin, B. Ahmed, S. Lehericy, M. C. Klein-Flügge, K. Krüg, R. B. Mars, M. F. S. Rushworth, P. Pouget, J.-F. Aubry, and J. Sallet. Offline impact of transcranial focused ultrasound on cortical activation in primates.eLife, 8:e40541, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Folloni, L

    D. Folloni, L. Verhagen, R. B. Mars, E. Fouragnan, C. Constans, J.-F. Aubry, M. F. S. Rushworth, and J. Sallet. Manipulation of subcortical and deep cortical activity in the primate brain using transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation.Neuron, 101(6):1109–1116, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Lee, H.-C

    W. Lee, H.-C. Kim, Y. Jung, Y. A. Chung, I.-U. Song, J.-H. Lee, and S.-S. Yoo. Transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation of human primary visual cortex.Scientific Reports, 6:34026, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    O. Naor, S. Krupa, and S. Shoham. Ultrasonic neuromodulation.Journal of Neural Engineering, 13(3):031003, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Blackmore, S

    J. Blackmore, S. Shrivastava, J. Sallet, C. R. Butler, and R. O. Cleveland. Ultrasound neuromodu- lation: a review of results, mechanisms and safety.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 45(7):1509– 1536, 2019. 43 G F Pinton

    work page 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Fomenko, C

    A. Fomenko, C. Neudorfer, R. F. Dallapiazza, S. K. Kalia, and A. M. Lozano. Low-intensity ultrasound neuromodulation: an overview of mechanisms and emerging human applications.Brain Stimulation, 11(6):1209–1217, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Kubanek, P

    J. Kubanek, P. Shukla, A. Das, S. A. Baccus, and M. B. Goodman. Ultrasound elicits behavioral responses through mechanical effects on neurons and ion channels in a simple nervous system. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(12):3081–3091, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Z. Qiu, J. Guo, S. Kala, J. Zhu, Q. Xian, W. Qiu, G. Li, T. Zhu, L. Meng, R. Zhang, H. C. Chan, H. Zheng, and L. Sun. The mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1 significantly mediates in vitro ultrasonic stimulation of neurons.iScience, 21:448–457, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    S. Yoo, D. R. Mittelstein, R. C. Hurt, J. Lacroix, and M. G. Shapiro. Focused ultrasound excites cortical neurons via mechanosensitive calcium accumulation and ion channel amplification.Nature Communications, 13(1):493, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. Zhu, Q. Xian, X. Hou, K. F. Wong, T. Zhu, Z. Chen, D. He, S. Kala, S. Murugappan, J. Jing, Y. Wu, X. Zhao, D. Li, J. Guo, Z. Qiu, and L. Sun. The mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1 contributes to ultrasound neuromodulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Plaksin, S

    M. Plaksin, S. Shoham, and E. Kimmel. Intramembrane cavitation as a predictive bio-piezoelectric mechanism for ultrasonic brain stimulation.Physical Review X, 4(1):011004, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Plaksin, E

    M. Plaksin, E. Kimmel, and S. Shoham. Cell-type-selective effects of intramembrane cavitation as a unifying theoretical framework for ultrasonic neuromodulation.eNeuro, 3(3):ENEURO.0136– 15.2016, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Lemaire, E

    T. Lemaire, E. Neufeld, N. Kuster, and S. Micera. Understanding ultrasound neuromodulation using a computationally efficient and interpretable model of intramembrane cavitation.Journal of Neural Engineering, 16(4):046007, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    G. F. Pinton, J. Dahl, S. Rosenzweig, and G. E. Trahey. A heterogeneous nonlinear attenuating full-wave model of ultrasound.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 56(3):474–488, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    B. E. Treeby and B. T. Cox. k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields.Journal of Biomedical Optics, 15(2):021314, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Aubry, O

    J.-F. Aubry, O. Bates, C. Boehm, K. Butts Pauly, D. Christensen, C. Cueto, P. Gelat, L. Guasch, J. Jaros, Y. Jing, R. Jones, N. Li, P. Marty, H. Montanaro, E. Neufeld, S. Pichardo, G. Pinton, A. Pulkkinen, A. Stanziola, A. Thielscher, B. Treeby, and E. van ’t Wout. Benchmark p...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Salahshoor, M

    H. Salahshoor, M. G. Shapiro, and M. Ortiz. Transcranial focused ultrasound generates skull- conducted shear waves: computational model and implications for neuromodulation.Applied Physics Letters, 117(3):033702, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    M. L. Palmeri, A. C. Sharma, R. R. Bouchard, R. W. Nightingale, and K. R. Nightingale. A finite-element method model of soft tissue response to impulsive acoustic radiation force.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 52(10):1699–1712, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    G. F. Pinton. A reduced viscoelastic FDTD formulation for ultrasound-driven shear wave propaga- tion in soft tissue.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.28414, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Coste, J

    B. Coste, J. Mathur, M. Schmidt, T. J. Earley, S. Ranade, M. J. Petrus, A. E. Dubin, and A. Pat- apoutian. Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels.Science, 330(6000):55–60, 2010. 44 G F Pinton

    2010

  16. [24]

    Köhler, B

    M. Köhler, B. Hirschberg, C. T. Bond, J. M. Kinzie, N. V. Marrion, J. Maylie, and J. P. Adel- man. Small-conductance, calcium-activated potassium channels from mammalian brain.Science, 273(5282):1709–1714, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Justin Lee

    Soo-Jin Oh, Jung Moo Lee, Hyun-Bum Kim, Jungpyo Lee, Sungmin Han, Jin Young Bae, Gyu- Sang Hong, Wuhyun Koh, Jea Kwon, Eun-Sang Hwang, Dong Ho Woo, Inchan Youn, Il-Joo Cho, Yong Chul Bae, Sungon Lee, Jae Wan Shim, Ji-Ho Park, and C. Justin Lee. Ultrasonic Neuromod- ulation via...

    2019

  18. [26]

    W. J. Tyler, Y. Tufail, M. Finsterwald, M. L. Tauchmann, E. J. Olson, and C. Majestic. Re- mote excitation of neuronal circuits using low-intensity, low-frequency ultrasound.PLOS ONE, 3(10):e3511, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    W. J. Tyler. The mechanobiology of brain function.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(12):867–878, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    M. M. Maneshi, B. Maki, R. Gnanasambandam, S. Belin, G. K. Popescu, F. Sachs, and S. Z. Hua. Mechanical stress activates NMDA receptors in the absence of agonists.Scientific Reports, 7:39610, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Kubanek, J

    J. Kubanek, J. Shi, J. Marsh, D. Chen, C. Deng, and J. Cui. Ultrasound modulates ion channel currents.Scientific Reports, 6:24170, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    S. N. Yaakub, T. A. White, J. Roberts, E. Martin, L. Verhagen, C. J. Stagg, S. Hall, and E. F. Fouragnan. Transcranial focused ultrasound-mediated neurochemical and functional connectivity changes in deep cortical regions in humans.Nature Communications, 14:5318, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    G. F. Pinton. Ultrasound imaging of the human body with three dimensional full-wave nonlinear acoustics. Part 1: simulation methods.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06934, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G. F. Pinton. A fullwave model of the nonlinear wave equation with multiple relaxations and relaxing perfectly matched layers for high-order numerical finite-difference solutions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11476, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. H. Pennes. Analysis of tissue and arterial blood temperatures in the resting human forearm. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1(2):93–122, 1948

    1948

  26. [34]

    Pinton, J.-F

    G. Pinton, J.-F. Aubry, E. Bossy, M. Muller, M. Pernot, and M. Tanter. Attenuation, scattering, and absorption of ultrasound in the skull bone.Medical Physics, 39(1):299–307, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Rawicz, K

    W. Rawicz, K. C. Olbrich, T. McIntosh, D. Needham, and E. Evans. Effect of chain length and unsaturation on elasticity of lipid bilayers.Biophysical Journal, 79(1):328–339, 2000

    2000

  28. [36]

    Sukharev and F

    S. Sukharev and F. Sachs. Molecular force transduction by ion channels: diversity and unifying principles.Journal of Cell Science, 125(13):3075–3083, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Howard and A

    J. Howard and A. J. Hudspeth. Compliance of the hair bundle associated with gating of mechano- electrical transduction channels in the bullfrog’s saccular hair cell.Neuron, 1(3):189–199, 1988

    1988

  30. [38]

    A. H. Lewis and J. Grandl. Mechanical sensitivity of Piezo1 ion channels can be tuned by cellular membrane tension.eLife, 4:e12088, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    S. G. Brohawn, Z. Su, and R. MacKinnon. Mechanosensitivity is mediated directly by the lipid membrane in TRAAK and TREK1 K+ channels.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(9):3614–3619, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    E. Honoré. The neuronal background K2P channels: focus on TREK1.Nature Reviews Neuro- science, 8(4):251–261, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve.The Journal of Physiology, 117(4):500–544, 1952. 45 G F Pinton

    1952

  34. [42]

    Pospischil, M

    M. Pospischil, M. Toledo-Rodriguez, C. Monier, Z. Piwkowska, T. Bal, Y. Frégnac, H. Markram, and A. Destexhe. Minimal Hodgkin-Huxley type models for different classes of cortical and thalamic neurons.Biological Cybernetics, 99(4-5):427–441, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    M. H. P. Kole, S. U. Ilschner, B. M. Kampa, S. R. Williams, P. C. Ruben, and G. J. Stuart. Action potential generation requires a high sodium channel density in the axon initial segment.Nature Neuroscience, 11(2):178–186, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    W. Hu, C. Tian, T. Li, M. Yang, H. Hou, and Y. Shu. Distinct contributions of Na(v)1.6 and Na(v)1.2 in action potential initiation and backpropagation.Nature Neuroscience, 12(8):996–1002, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    AmplificationofEPSPsbyaxosomaticsodiumchannelsinneocortical pyramidal neurons.Neuron, 15(5):1065–1076, 1995

    G.J.StuartandB.Sakmann. AmplificationofEPSPsbyaxosomaticsodiumchannelsinneocortical pyramidal neurons.Neuron, 15(5):1065–1076, 1995

    1995

  38. [46]

    P. F. Pinsky and J. Rinzel. Intrinsic and network rhythmogenesis in a reduced Traub model for CA3 neurons.Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 1(1):39–60, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    Z. F. Mainen and T. J. Sejnowski. Influence of dendritic structure on firing pattern in model neocortical neurons.Nature, 382(6589):363–366, 1996

    1996

  40. [48]

    L. J. Borg-Graham. Interpretations of data and mechanisms for hippocampal pyramidal cell models. In P. S. Ulinski, E. G. Jones, and A. Peters, editors,Cerebral Cortex Vol. 13: Models of Cortical Circuits, pages 19–138. Springer US, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    M. J. Caterina, M. A. Schumacher, M. Tominaga, T. A. Rosen, J. D. Levine, and D. Julius. The capsaicin receptor: a heat-activated ion channel in the pain pathway.Nature, 389(6653):816–824, 1997

    1997

  42. [50]

    Jahr and Charles F

    Craig E. Jahr and Charles F. Stevens. Voltage dependence of NMDA-activated macroscopic con- ductances predicted by single-channel kinetics.Journal of Neuroscience, 10(9):3178–3182, 1990

    1990

  43. [51]

    Stuart, N

    G. Stuart, N. Spruston, B. Sakmann, and M. Häusser. Action potential initiation and backpropa- gation in neurons of the mammalian CNS.Trends in Neurosciences, 20(3):125–131, 1997

    1997

  44. [52]

    Aubry, D

    J.-F. Aubry, D. Attali, M. E. Schafer, E. Fouragnan, C. F. Caskey, R. Chen, G. Darmani, E. J. Bubrick, J.Sallet, C.R.Butler, C.J.Stagg, M.C.Klein-Flügge, S.-S.Yoo, C.K.Holland, B.Treeby, E. Martin, L. Verhagen, and K. Butts Pauly. ITRUSST consensus on biophysical safety for tr...

    1905

  45. [53]

    Heimburg and A

    T. Heimburg and A. D. Jackson. On soliton propagation in biomembranes and nerves.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(28):9790–9795, 2005

    2005

  46. [54]

    Heimburg.Thermal Biophysics of Membranes

    T. Heimburg.Thermal Biophysics of Membranes. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2007

    2007

  47. [55]

    H. Bang, Y. Kim, and D. Kim. TREK-2, a new member of the mechanosensitive tandem-pore K+ channel family.Journal of Biological Chemistry, 275(23):17412–17419, 2000

    2000

  48. [56]

    Agonist-induced changes in Ca2+ permeation through the nociceptor cation channel TRPA1

    Yuji Karashima, Jean Prenen, Karel Talavera, Annelies Janssens, Thomas Voets, and Bernd Nil- ius. Agonist-induced changes in Ca2+ permeation through the nociceptor cation channel TRPA1. Biophysical Journal, 98(5):773–783, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    A. D. Güler, H. Lee, T. Iida, I. Shimizu, M. Tominaga, and M. Caterina. Heat-evoked activation of the ion channel, TRPV4.Journal of Neuroscience, 22(15):6408–6414, 2002

    2002

  50. [58]

    Astrocyte calcium signaling: the third wave.Nature Neuro- science, 19(2):182–189, 2016

    Narges Bazargani and David Attwell. Astrocyte calcium signaling: the third wave.Nature Neuro- science, 19(2):182–189, 2016

    2016

  51. [59]

    Vladimir Parpura and Philip G. Haydon. Physiological astrocytic calcium levels stimulate glu- tamate release to modulate adjacent neurons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(15):8629–8634, 2000. 46

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.