Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Miniaturized optically-generated Bessel beam ultrasound for volumetric transcranial brain stimulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A miniature optically generated Bessel-beam ultrasound device creates a column-shaped acoustic focus and is reported to activate rodent brain circuits to depths of about 2 mm while preserving its shape through the skull.

desk verdict Clever miniaturized optoacoustic Bessel-beam emitter with real engineering value, but the 'transcranial, non-invasive' headline claim is carried by simulation and a single unreported intact-skull mouse; all the multi-subject in vivo data were acquired through skull openings. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06108 v1 pith:EZAGKVWN submitted 2025-07-08 q-bio.NC

Yueming Li , Guo Chen , Tiago R. Oliveira , Nick Todd , Yong-Zhi Zhang , Carolyn Marar , Nan Zheng , Lu Lan
show 3 more authors
Nathan McDannold Ji-Xin Cheng Chen Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords Besselbeamoptoacousticultrasoundneuromodulationtranscranialvolumeoftissueactivationc-FosfunctionalMRIrodentbrain
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

The paper sets out to resolve a trade-off in non-invasive brain stimulation: miniature devices tend to lose volumetric control, and high spatial resolution tends to come at the cost of transcranial penetration. It introduces a 2.33-mm, 2.1-mg optoacoustic emitter whose conical candle-soot-embedded PDMS surface turns nanosecond laser pulses into a zeroth-order Bessel beam of ultrasound, producing a column-shaped focus with a lateral full width at half maximum of 152 µm and an axial value of 1.93 mm. The central claim is that this column can stimulate elongated subregions such as ocular dominance columns to depths around 2 mm, and that it holds its shape and intensity through the skull better than a conventional Gaussian beam. Supporting evidence includes c-Fos activation to 2.2 mm depth in mouse cortex, local-field-potential increases in mice, BOLD responses in rats, and a mechanical index of 0.93 with sub-1-K temperature rise. If true, this would give researchers a wearable, non-genetic tool for mapping and modulating columnar brain circuits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the OBUS device itself: a conical optoacoustic emitter whose curved, candle-soot-loaded PDMS surface acts as the acoustic source, launching a zeroth-order Bessel beam. The cone is the ultrasound analogue of an axicon lens, and its depth of focus is set by the relation $\mathrm{DOF}=R/\tan\theta$, where $R$ is the cone radius (1.65 mm after optimization) and $\theta$ the cone angle (15°). The optoacoustic conversion follows $p_0=\Gamma\mu_a F$, with the Grüneisen parameter $\Gamma=\beta K/(\rho C_v)$ and bulk modulus $K=E/[3(1-2\nu)]$, so tuning the PDMS stiffness through the base-to-curing-agent ratio (8:1 optimum) maximizes the emitted pressure. A polished rounded tip is the second key mechanism: it raises peak intensity inside the volume of tissue activation by 51.6% compared with a sharp cone, combining the elongated field of a Bessel beam with a stronger focal region.

What would settle it

Measure the acoustic field of OBUS and of a Gaussian emitter of the same focal depth after propagation through a real rat or mouse skull using a calibrated hydrophone; if the post-skull axial and lateral FWHM changes and the peak-intensity ratio do not match the simulated 18.7% versus 11.0% efficiency and the 40.5% versus 566.7% axial change, the transcranial-advantage claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OBUS is reported as a miniaturized optoacoustic device that generates a Bessel beam of ultrasound for neuromodulation. A slightly rounded conical emitter is coated with candle soot and embedded in PDMS at an optimized 8:1 base-to-curing-agent ratio; under 2.2-ns, 1064-nm laser pulses it radiates a broad-band acoustic beam with a measured lateral FWHM of 152 µm and axial FWHM of 1.93 mm. Because the beam is a zeroth-order Bessel beam, it is non-diffracting and self-healing, which the authors argue is what preserves the elongated focus after skull passage. In acoustic-wave simulations with an imported rat skull profile, the device achieved 18.7% peak-intensity transcranial efficiency versus 11.0% for a Gaussian beam, and its axial resolution changed by 40.5% rather than 566.7%. In vivo, c-Fos staining marked activation to 2.2 mm depth in mouse cortex, LFP power rose in the 10–50 Hz band in mice, and fMRI BOLD responses appeared beneath the device in rats, with the measured mechanical index of 0.93 below the 1.9 safety threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that OBUS keeps its beam shape and transmission efficiency through the skull rests entirely on simulations with an imported rat skull profile, not on measured acoustic fields after skull passage, and the in vivo demonstrations of non-invasive activation were mostly obtained through a cranial window or craniotomy, with only one intact-skull c-Fos mouse reported and at a lower success rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Columnar subregions about 0.4–0.9 mm wide and 2–3 mm long, such as ocular dominance columns, become targetable with a single 2.33-mm emitter rather than a multielement array.
  • Because the device weighs 2.1 mg, the approach is compatible with wearable and freely moving animal experiments, which are difficult with rigid piezoelectric arrays.
  • If the skull-aberration simulations hold, OBUS could deliver a well-defined deep-brain volume of tissue activation at targets like the rat thalamus at 4.8 mm while sparing tissue along the propagation path from Gaussian-like off-target exposure.
  • OBUS offers a non-genetic alternative to optogenetics for circuit-mapping studies, avoiding viral delivery and long incubation while reaching depths of about 2 mm that blue-light optogenetics cannot.
  • Combining a Bessel-beam-shaped volume of tissue activation with fMRI readouts gives a way to map the hemodynamic footprint of a precisely shaped stimulated region directly beneath the device.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to place an ex vivo skull between OBUS and a hydrophone and compare the measured post-skull beam width and peak pressure with the simulated values; this would directly separate the transcranial-advantage claim from the in vivo activation results.
  • If the beam shape is as robust as simulated, an array of small OBUS cones, or a cone with an adjustable angle, could steer and reshape the column in three dimensions, extending the approach to arbitrary subregion geometries rather than fixed vertical columns.
  • The 152-µm lateral resolution comes at a 10.6-MHz center frequency; at this frequency skull attenuation is severe, so translating the device to human-scale skulls would likely require lower frequencies, where the lateral-resolution advantage will shrink—a quantitative trade the paper does not address.
  • The self-healing property of Bessel beams might be exploited to stimulate through heterogeneities such as blood vessels or ventricles, but that resilience is so far supported only by the skull simulation and by prior Bessel-beam physics, not by tissue measurements in this study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a miniaturized optoacoustic device (OBUS) that generates a Bessel-beam ultrasound field for brain stimulation, with hydrophone-measured lateral and axial resolutions of 152 μm and 1.93 mm in free field. Using k-Wave simulations with an imported rat skull profile, the authors claim that OBUS outperforms a conventional Gaussian emitter in transcranial transmission efficiency and beam-shape preservation. In vivo experiments include c-Fos immunofluorescence after stimulation in mice, LFP recordings in mice, BOLD fMRI in rats, and safety estimates based on mechanical index and temperature measurements. The central claims are that OBUS achieves non-invasive transcranial stimulation of intact brains, superior transcranial beam maintenance, and precise volumetric control with 152 μm lateral resolution.

Significance. The device concept—an optically driven conical emitter producing a Bessel-like columnar ultrasound field in a 2.33-mm package—is novel and potentially useful for targeting elongated brain subregions. The free-field characterization is careful and includes independent hydrophone measurements, a laser-off control, and a contralateral-placement control for the LFP experiments. The simulation work is reproducible and based on an open-source toolkit. However, the load-bearing claims are not currently supported: the in vivo experiments used cranial windows or craniotomies rather than intact skulls, the transcranial advantage rests entirely on simulation without experimental validation, and the 152 μm lateral resolution is not demonstrated in tissue. If the claims were revised and the missing intact-skull data or a validated simulation pipeline were provided, this could be a significant technical contribution; in its present form the manuscript substantially overstates the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Methods (In vivo stimulation on mice; Electrophysiological recording; fMRI acquisition); Discussion] The central claim that OBUS "non-invasively activate[s] neural circuits in intact brains" is not supported by the reported in vivo experiments. The c-Fos experiment was performed through a cranial window (N=1), as acknowledged in the Discussion; the LFP experiments required craniotomy (Methods, "Electrophysiological recording"); and the fMRI experiments used a 5-mm cranial window with the skullcap removed (Methods, "fMRI acquisition and processing"). The only intact-skull result is an N=1 c-Fos mouse mentioned in the Discussion as having a lower success rate, but no data from that experiment are shown. The authors must either present intact-skull data or revise the abstract, title, and Discussion so that the claims match the actual experimental preparations.
  2. [Transcranial efficiency and VTA maintenance of OBUS after skull aberration; Table 1; Fig. 1E,F] The claimed transcranial advantage over Gaussian beams rests entirely on k-Wave simulations (Fig. 2, Table 2), with no experimental pressure measurement after skull passage. Confidence in this simulation pipeline is weakened by an unexplained discrepancy with the free-field measurements: Table 1 predicts for the 15° cone a lateral resolution of 0.33 mm and an axial resolution of 4.49 mm, while the measured values are 152 μm and 1.93 mm (Fig. 1E,F). The skull simulations use a different central frequency (10 MHz) from the design simulations (15 MHz), and no validation of the 10-MHz simulation against the measured free-field profile is provided. Please provide an experimental through-skull measurement or a clear validation of the simulation pipeline, and discuss the factor-of-two discrepancy.
  3. [Discussion; Supplementary Fig. S5] The 152 μm lateral resolution is not demonstrated in vivo. The Discussion states that in the c-Fos experiment the "VTA identified by the c-Fos-positive region exhibited a lateral profile exceeding 1 mm" at 1.2 mm depth, because the pressure was increased to engage the full OBUS beam. This means the actual lateral extent of cellular activation in tissue was greater than 1 mm, far exceeding 152 μm. Thus the paper's central claim of precise volumetric control with 152 μm lateral resolution in brain tissue is not validated by any in vivo experiment. Lateral quantification of c-Fos or spatially resolved electrophysiological mapping is needed to support the lateral-resolution claim in tissue.
  4. [Electrophysiological responses induced in vivo by OBUS; Fig. 4E] The LFP statistical analysis is vulnerable to selection bias: the paired t-tests were performed at 46.9 Hz, described as "the frequency with the largest PSD increase at 4.1 MPa," without correction for multiple comparisons across frequency bins. With N=3 mice, the reported significance at 3.7 and 4.1 MPa rests on a post hoc choice of test frequency. The authors should either pre-specify frequency bands (e.g., beta and gamma ranges) or use cluster-based permutation testing. The qualitative spectrograms and control experiments support a modulation effect, but the p-values as reported are overoptimistic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Design of OBUS; Eq. (1); Table 1] The relationship between Eq. (1), which defines DOF = R/tan(θ), and the axial resolution values in Table 1 should be clarified: for the 15° cone, R/tan(θ) ≈ 6.16 mm, but Table 1 reports an axial resolution of 4.49 mm. Please state whether the table entries are FWHM values of the axial pressure profile and how they relate to the DOF definition.
  2. [Transcranial efficiency and VTA maintenance of OBUS after skull aberration; Table 2] The statement that OBUS "surpass[es] the Gaussian beam by 70%" is ambiguous because 18.7% versus 11.0% could be read as a 70-percentage-point difference. Please report the improvement as a relative percentage (e.g., "70% relative improvement") and specify the normalization used for the peak intensity ratio.
  3. [Elongated stimulation volume delivery in vivo with OBUS; Supplementary Fig. S7] The text says an additional 0.6 mm was added to the c-Fos depth to account for the ultrasound gel gap, but the Methods and Fig. 3A describe a 0.5 mm gap. Please reconcile this discrepancy and define precisely how the gel gap was measured.
  4. [In vivo stimulation on mice via OBUS; Elongated stimulation volume delivery in vivo with OBUS] The c-Fos results section reports stereotaxic coordinates AP: -0.5, ML: 1.5 for the motor cortex, while the Methods section lists AP: -1.5, ML: 2 for the somatosensory cortex under the same c-Fos protocol. Please specify which coordinate set was actually used for the c-Fos experiments.
  5. [Safety evaluation of in vivo OBUS neural modulation] The mechanical index is estimated from the negative-to-positive peak pressure ratio of the waveform in Fig. 1D rather than from a direct measurement of rarefactional pressure at the in vivo pressure levels (up to 5 MPa peak-to-peak). Please report the actual measured negative peak pressure and state whether any derating for skull attenuation was applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: simulation-informed design, independent hydrophone characterization, and in vivo readouts; the intact-skull claim is under-supported but not circular.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The device geometry (R = 1.65 mm, θ = 15°) was selected from independent k-Wave simulations using stated design criteria ('we decided to demonstrate OBUS in rodents... targeting a lateral resolution ≤ 0.35 mm'), and the resulting field was then characterized with a hydrophone (Fig. 1E-F), giving measured values (152 μm lateral, 1.93 mm axial) that are reported as measurements, not as restatements of the simulated Table 1 values (0.33 mm and 4.49 mm). The transcranial comparison with a Gaussian beam is openly simulation-only: 'We performed simulations instead of experimental testing because, for a fair comparison, precisely targeting the same depth is straightforward in simulation but challenging to achieve in device fabrication.' That is an evidence gap—no experimental post-skull pressure measurement—not a circular reduction. The c-Fos depth analysis is correlative rather than fitted: 'When an additional 0.6 mm was added to accounted for the gap of ultrasound gel to the 2.2 mm depth, the decay pattern of the c-Fos signal closely matched the axial acoustic profile,' using an independently measured acoustic profile as a comparator. Self-citations (refs 34-38) supply background and simulation parameters ('200% bandwidth based on previous work (38)') but are not load-bearing for the central activation claims, which rest on independent readouts: hydrophone measurements, c-Fos immunofluorescence, LFP with laser-off and contralateral controls, and fMRI BOLD. The paper itself flags the key limitation: 'the c-Fos data in Figure 3 were acquired using a cranial window rather than a fully transcranial method' and the intact-skull result was obtained in one mouse with 'lower success rate'; fMRI Methods likewise state 'a 5-mm diameter cranial window was surgically created by removing the skullcap,' and LFP Methods required 'craniotomy.' These passages make the Abstract's intact-brain claim under-supported, but under-support is a validation problem, not a definitional or fitted-input circularity. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Bessel beam optics, k-Wave simulations with assumed tissue properties, and the implicit assumption that cranial-window/craniotomy results represent transcranial performance. The free parameters are engineering choices (cone angle, radius, PDMS ratio) selected via simulation and experiment, plus an inconsistency in simulation frequency.

free parameters (4)
  • Conical angle theta = 15 degrees
    Selected from k-Wave simulations (Table 1) to satisfy lateral resolution, DOF, and maximum pressure position criteria; not derived from first principles.
  • Device radius R = 1.65 mm
    Chosen to satisfy miniaturization (<4 mm) and DOF targets; feeds into DOF = R/tan(theta).
  • PDMS base-to-curing agent ratio = 8:1
    Experimentally optimized to maximize optoacoustic pressure (Fig. 1G); used for final device.
  • Simulation central frequency = 15 MHz for design, 10 MHz for skull study
    Inconsistency: design optimization used 15 MHz/200% BW based on ref 38, but skull simulations and characterization used 10 MHz/250% BW based on measured OBUS spectrum.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DOF = R/tan(theta) for a conical optoacoustic emitter generating a zeroth-order Bessel beam
    Standard axicon/Bessel beam relation, used in Eq. 1 and for design.
  • domain assumption k-Wave simulation in 2D with rotational symmetry accurately predicts the acoustic field of the OBUS device
    Methods: 'simulation was performed in 2D, leveraging rotational symmetry'.
  • domain assumption Water is an adequate propagation medium for simulating brain tissue acoustic propagation
    Methods: 'Water was chosen as the propagation medium' for optimization and skull simulations.
  • domain assumption The imported rat skull profile and the emitter surface profile extracted from a photograph accurately represent the experimental geometry
    Methods: 'a real profile of a rat skull was scanned by ultrasound and imported' and 'the emitter's surface profile was extracted from a photograph and imported into the simulation.'
  • ad hoc to paper Cranial window and craniotomy preparations are representative of transcranial stimulation conditions
    Most in vivo experiments used a cranial window (fMRI) or craniotomy (LFP); only one intact-skull c-Fos mouse is mentioned, with lower success rate, but data are not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Miniaturized optically-generated Bessel beam ultrasound for volumetric transcranial brain stimulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZAGKVWN

@misc{pith2026250706108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Miniaturized optically-generated Bessel beam ultrasound for volumetric transcranial brain stimulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZAGKVWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06108}
}
read the original abstract

Non-invasive stimulation of small, variably shaped brain sub-regions is crucial for advancing our understanding of brain functions. Current ultrasound neuromodulation faces two significant trade-offs when targeting brain sub-regions: miniaturization versus volumetric control and spatial resolution versus transcranial capability. Here, we present an optically-generated Bessel beam ultrasound (OBUS) device designed to overcome these limitations. This 2.33 mm-diameter miniaturized device delivers a column-shaped field achieving a lateral resolution of 152 um and an axial resolution of 1.93 mm, targeting brain sub-regions with an elongated volume of tissue activation. Immunofluorescence imaging of mouse brain slices confirms its ability to stimulate cells at a depth of 2.2 mm. Additionally, OBUS outperforms conventional Gaussian ultrasound in transcranial transmission efficiency and beam shape preservation. Electrophysiological recordings and functional MRI captured rodent brain responses evoked by OBUS, demonstrating OBUS's ability to non-invasively activate neural circuits in intact brains. This technology offers new possibilities for studying brain functions with precision and volumetric control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06108 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Design of OBUS and characterization of the acoustic field generated. (A) Schematic illustration of the OBUS device for non-invasive brain stimulation in rodents. (B) Schematic of OBUS device and the resulting acoustic field. Key parameters are highlighted. (C) Simulated acoustic field generated by OBUS with a conical angle of 15°. (D) Acoustic waveform and corresponding frequency spectrum recorded at the peak pressu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. A. Vogt, Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci 6, 533–544 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    K. C. Berridge, Affective valence in the brain: modules or modes? Nat Rev Neurosci 20, 225–234 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Martínez-Fernández, L

    R. Martínez-Fernández, L. Zrinzo, I. Aviles-Olmos, M. Hariz, I. Martinez-Torres, E. Joyce, M. Jahanshahi, P. Limousin, T. Foltynie, Deep brain stimulation for Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: A case series targeting subregions of the globus pallidus internus. Movement Disorders 26, 1922–1930 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    J. E. Hoover, P. L. Strick, Multiple output channels in the basal ganglia. Science 259, 819– 821 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    D. L. Adams, L. C. Sincich, J. C. Horton, Complete Pattern of Ocular Dominance Columns in Human Primary Visual Cortex. J. Neurosci. 27, 10391–10403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    LeVay, M

    S. LeVay, M. Connolly, J. Houde, D. V. Essen, The complete pattern of ocular dominance stripes in the striate cortex and visual field of the macaque monkey. J. Neurosci. 5, 486–501 (1985)

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    J. C. Horton, D. R. Hocking, An adult-like pattern of ocular dominance columns in striate cortex of newborn monkeys prior to visual experience. J. Neurosci. 16, 1791–1807 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Breit, J

    S. Breit, J. B. Schulz, A.-L. Benabid, Deep brain stimulation. Cell Tissue Res 318, 275–288 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    J. S. Perlmutter, J. W. Mink, DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION. Annual Review of Neuroscience 29, 229–257 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    A. M. Lozano, N. Lipsman, H. Bergman, P. Brown, S. Chabardes, J. W. Chang, K. Matthews, C. C. McIntyre, T. E. Schlaepfer, M. Schulder, Y. Temel, J. Volkmann, J. K. Krauss, Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol 15, 148–160 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. D. Johnson, S. Miocinovic, C. C. McIntyre, J. L. Vitek, Mechanisms and Targets of Deep Brain Stimulation in Movement Disorders. Neurotherapeutics 5, 294–308 (2008). Page 21 of 24

    2008

  4. [12]

    W. M. M. Schüpbach, S. Chabardes, C. Matthies, C. Pollo, F. Steigerwald, L. Timmermann, V. Visser Vandewalle, J. Volkmann, P. R. Schuurman, Directional leads for deep brain stimulation: Opportunities and challenges. Movement Disorders 32, 1371–1375 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Zhang, M

    S. Zhang, M. Tagliati, N. Pouratian, B. Cheeran, E. Ross, E. Pereira, Steering the Volume of Tissue Activated With a Directional Deep Brain Stimulation Lead in the Globus Pallidus Pars Interna: A Modeling Study With Heterogeneous Tissue Properties. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 14 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Zhang, P

    S. Zhang, P. Silburn, N. Pouratian, B. Cheeran, L. Venkatesan, A. Kent, A. Schnitzler, Comparing Current Steering Technologies for Directional Deep Brain Stimulation Using a Computational Model That Incorporates Heterogeneous Tissue Properties. Neuromodulation 23, 469–477 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Nagel, D

    G. Nagel, D. Ollig, M. Fuhrmann, S. Kateriya, A. M. Musti, E. Bamberg, P. Hegemann, Channelrhodopsin-1: a light-gated proton channel in green algae. Science 296, 2395–2398 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    E. S. Boyden, F. Zhang, E. Bamberg, G. Nagel, K. Deisseroth, Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity. Nat Neurosci 8, 1263–1268 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    Delbeke, L

    J. Delbeke, L. Hoffman, K. Mols, D. Braeken, D. Prodanov, And Then There Was Light: Perspectives of Optogenetics for Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation. Front Neurosci 11, 663 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    M. M. Chernov, R. M. Friedman, G. Chen, G. R. Stoner, A. W. Roe, Functionally specific optogenetic modulation in primate visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 10505–10510 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    O. Ruiz, B. R. Lustig, J. J. Nassi, A. Cetin, J. H. Reynolds, T. D. Albright, E. M. Callaway, G. R. Stoner, A. W. Roe, Optogenetics through windows on the brain in the nonhuman primate. Journal of Neurophysiology 110, 1455–1467 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Scharf, T

    R. Scharf, T. Tsunematsu, N. McAlinden, M. D. Dawson, S. Sakata, K. Mathieson, Depth- specific optogenetic control in vivo with a scalable, high-density μLED neural probe. Sci Rep 6, 28381 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Thair, A

    H. Thair, A. L. Holloway, R. Newport, A. D. Smith, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS): A Beginner’s Guide for Design and Implementation. Front Neurosci 11, 641 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Bolognini, T

    N. Bolognini, T. Ro, Transcranial magnetic stimulation: disrupting neural activity to alter and assess brain function. J Neurosci 30, 9647–9650 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Beisteiner, M

    R. Beisteiner, M. Hallett, A. M. Lozano, Ultrasound Neuromodulation as a New Brain Therapy. Advanced Science 10, 2205634 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Tufail, A

    Y. Tufail, A. Yoshihiro, S. Pati, M. M. Li, W. J. Tyler, Ultrasonic neuromodulation by brain stimulation with transcranial ultrasound. Nat Protoc 6, 1453–1470 (2011). Page 22 of 24

    2011

  17. [25]

    G. Li, W. Qiu, Z. Zhang, Q. Jiang, M. Su, R. Cai, Y. Li, F. Cai, Z. Deng, D. Xu, H. Zhang, H. Zheng, Noninvasive Ultrasonic Neuromodulation in Freely Moving Mice. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 66, 217–224 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Y. Yang, J. Yuan, R. L. Field, D. Ye, Z. Hu, K. Xu, L. Xu, Y. Gong, Y. Yue, A. V. Kravitz, M. R. Bruchas, J. Cui, J. R. Brestoff, H. Chen, Induction of a torpor-like hypothermic and hypometabolic state in rodents by ultrasound. Nat Metab 5, 789–803 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Z. Lin, L. Meng, J. Zou, W. Zhou, X. Huang, S. Xue, T. Bian, T. Yuan, L. Niu, Y. Guo, H. Zheng, Non-invasive ultrasonic neuromodulation of neuronal excitability for treatment of epilepsy. Theranostics 10, 5514–5526 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Munoz, A

    F. Munoz, A. Meaney, A. Gross, K. Liu, A. N. Pouliopoulos, D. Liu, E. E. Konofagou, V. P. Ferrera, Long term study of motivational and cognitive effects of low-intensity focused ultrasound neuromodulation in the dorsal striatum of nonhuman primates. Brain Stimulation 15, 360–3...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Beisteiner, E

    R. Beisteiner, E. Matt, C. Fan, H. Baldysiak, M. Schönfeld, T. Philippi Novak, A. Amini, T. Aslan, R. Reinecke, J. Lehrner, A. Weber, U. Reime, C. Goldenstedt, E. Marlinghaus, M. Hallett, H. Lohse-Busch, Transcranial Pulse Stimulation with Ultrasound in Alzheimer’s Disease—A N...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Jiménez-Gambín, N

    S. Jiménez-Gambín, N. Jiménez, J. M. Benlloch, F. Camarena, Generating Bessel beams with broad depth-of-field by using phase-only acoustic holograms. Sci Rep 9, 20104 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Antonacci, D

    G. Antonacci, D. Caprini, G. Ruocco, Demonstration of self-healing and scattering resilience of acoustic Bessel beams. Applied Physics Letters 114, 013502 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Zhuang, J

    X. Zhuang, J. He, J. Wu, X. Ji, Y. Chen, M. Yuan, L. Zeng, A Spatial Multitarget Ultrasound Neuromodulation System Using High-Powered 2-D Array Transducer. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 69, 998–1007 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Chan, H.-Y

    H. Chan, H.-Y. Chang, W.-L. Lin, G.-S. Chen, Large-Volume Focused-Ultrasound Mild Hyperthermia for Improving Blood-Brain Tumor Barrier Permeability Application. Pharmaceutics 14, 2012 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Z. Du, G. Chen, Y. Li, N. Zheng, J.-X. Cheng, C. Yang, Photoacoustic: A Versatile Nongenetic Method for High-Precision Neuromodulation. Acc. Chem. Res. 57, 1595–1607 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Jiang, H

    Y. Jiang, H. J. Lee, L. Lan, H. Tseng, C. Yang, H.-Y. Man, X. Han, J.-X. Cheng, Optoacoustic brain stimulation at submillimeter spatial precision. Nat Commun 11, 881 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    L. Shi, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhang, L. Lan, Y. Huang, J.-X. Cheng, C. Yang, A fiber optoacoustic emitter with controlled ultrasound frequency for cell membrane sonoporation at submillimeter spatial resolution. Photoacoustics 20, 100208 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    L. Shi, Y. Jiang, F. R. Fernandez, G. Chen, L. Lan, H.-Y. Man, J. A. White, J.-X. Cheng, C. Yang, Non-genetic photoacoustic stimulation of single neurons by a tapered fiber optoacoustic emitter. Light Sci Appl 10, 143 (2021). Page 23 of 24

    2021

  30. [38]

    Y. Li, Y. Jiang, L. Lan, X. Ge, R. Cheng, Y. Zhan, G. Chen, L. Shi, R. Wang, N. Zheng, C. Yang, J.-X. Cheng, Optically-generated focused ultrasound for noninvasive brain stimulation with ultrahigh precision. Light Sci Appl 11, 321 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Estrada, J

    H. Estrada, J. Robin, A. Özbek, Z. Chen, A. Marowsky, Q. Zhou, D. Beck, B. le Roy, M. Arand, S. Shoham, D. Razansky, High-resolution fluorescence-guided transcranial ultrasound mapping in the live mouse brain. Science Advances 7, eabi5464 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Hocheng, C.-M

    H. Hocheng, C.-M. Chen, Y.-C. Chou, C.-H. Lin, Study of novel electrical routing and integrated packaging on bio-compatible flexible substrates. Microsyst Technol 16, 423–430 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    B. G. Sanganahalli, G. J. Thompson, M. Parent, J. V. Verhagen, H. Blumenfeld, P. Herman, F. Hyder, Thalamic activations in rat brain by fMRI during tactile (forepaw, whisker) and non-tactile (visual, olfactory) sensory stimulations. PLOS ONE 17, e0267916 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    F. A. Duck, Medical and non-medical protection standards for ultrasound and infrasound. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 93, 176–191 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Y. Choe, J. W. Kim, K. K. Shung, E. S. Kim, Microparticle trapping in an ultrasonic Bessel beam. Applied Physics Letters 99, 233704 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Z. Xu, W. Xu, M. Qian, Q. Cheng, X. Liu, A flat acoustic lens to generate a Bessel-like beam. Ultrasonics 80, 66–71 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Jiménez, R

    N. Jiménez, R. Picó, V. Sánchez-Morcillo, V. Romero-García, L. M. García-Raffi, K. Staliunas, Formation of high-order acoustic Bessel beams by spiral diffraction gratings. Phys. Rev. E 94, 053004 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    J.-Y. Lu, J. F. Greenleaf, Ultrasonic nondiffracting transducer for medical imaging. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 37, 438–447 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    W. Gao, W. Liu, Y. Hu, J. Wang, Study of Ultrasonic Near-Field Region in Ultrasonic Liquid-Level Monitoring System. Micromachines (Basel) 11, 763 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Durnin, J

    J. Durnin, J. J. Miceli, J. H. Eberly, Comparison of Bessel and Gaussian beams. Opt. Lett., OL 13, 79–80 (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    J. K. Brynildsen, L.-M. Hsu, T. J. Ross, E. A. Stein, Y. Yang, H. Lu, Physiological characterization of a robust survival rodent fMRI method. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 35, 54–60 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    P. A. Valdes Hernandez, A. Sumiyoshi, H. Nonaka, R. Haga, E. Aubert Vasquez, T. Ogawa, Y. Iturria Medina, J. J. Riera, R. Kawashima, An in vivo MRI Template Set for Morphometry, Tissue Segmentation, and fMRI Localization in Rats. Front. Neuroinform. 5 (2011). Acknowledgments P...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.