ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2020
Direct Activation of Cortical Neurons in the Primary Somatosensory Cortex of the Rat in Vivo Using Focused Ultrasound.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental evaluation of an integrated focused ultrasound and electroencephalography approach for developing activation-informed neuroimaging.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Impact of endogenous sonosensation oniScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We address the recent controversy over whether focused ultrasound (FUS) activates cortical neurons directly or indirectly by initially activating auditory pathways. We obtained two types of evidence that FUS can directly activate cortical neurons. The depth profile of the local field potential (LFP) in the barrel cortex of the rat in vivo indicated a generator was located within the cortical gray matter. The onset and peak latencies of the initial component p1 were 3.2 ± 0.25 ms (mean ± standard error of the mean) and 7.6 ± 0.12 ms, respectively, for the direct cortical response (DCR), 6.8 ± 0.40 and 14.3 ± 0.54 ms for the FUS-evoked LFP (4 MHz, 3.2 MPa, 50 or 300 µs/pulse, 1-20 pulses at 1 kHz) and 6.9 ± 0.51 and 15.8 ± 0.94 ms for the LFP evoked by 1-ms deflection of the C2 whisker projecting to the same area. The peak latency of the FUS p1 was statistically (t-test) longer than the DCR, but shorter than the whisker p1 at p < 0.005.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.