Comparison of Transcranial Focused Ultrasound and Transcranial Pulse Stimulation for Neuromodulation: A Computational Study

Abstract

ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to investigate transcranial wave propagation through two low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU)–based brain stimulation techniques—transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation (tFUS) and transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS). Although tFUS involves delivering long trains of acoustic pulses, the newly introduced TPS delivers ultrashort (∼3 μs) pulses repeated at 4 Hz. Accordingly, only a single simulation study with limited geometry currently exists for TPS. We considered a high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) whole human head model in addition to water bath simulations. We anticipate that the results of this study will help researchers investigating LIFU have a better understanding of the effects of the two different techniques. ApproachWith an objective to first reproduce previous computational results, we considered two spherical tFUS transducers that were previously modeled. We assumed identical parameters (geometry, position, and imaging data set) to demonstrate differences, purely because of the waveform considered. For simulations with a 3D head data set, we also considered a parabolic transducer that has been used for TPS delivery. ResultsOur initial results successfully verified previous modeling workflow. The tFUS distribution was characterized by the typical elliptical profile, with its major axis perpendicular to the face of the transducer. The TPS distribution resembled two mirrored meniscus profiles, with its widest diameter oriented parallel to the face of the transducer. The observed intensity value differences were theoretical because the two waveforms differ in both intensity and time. The consideration of a realistic 3D human head model resulted in only a minor distortion of the two waveforms. SignificanceThis study simulated TPS administration using a 3D realistic image-derived data set. Although our comparison results are strictly limited to the model parameters and assumptions made, we were able to elucidate some clear differences between the two approaches. We hope this initial study will pave the way for systematic comparison between the two approaches in the future.