eLifeNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Auditory confounds can drive online effects of transcranial ultrasonic stimulation in humans
Benjamin R. KopiD, Yazan Shamli OghliiD, Talyta Cortez GrippeiD, Tulika NandiiD, Judith LefkesiD, Sjoerd W. MeijeriD, Soha FarboudiD, Marwan EngelsiD, Michelle Hamani, Melissa NulliD, Angela RadetziD, Umair HassaniD, Ghazaleh DarmaniiD, Андрей Анатольевич ЧетвериковiD, Hanneke E.M. den OudeniD, Til Ole BergmanniD, Robert E. CheniD, Lennart VerhageniD
Abstract
Transcranial ultrasonic stimulation (TUS) is rapidly emerging as a promising non-invasive neuromodulation technique. TUS is already well-established in animal models, providing foundations to now optimize neuromodulatory efficacy for human applications. Across multiple studies, one promising protocol, pulsed at 1000 Hz, has consistently resulted in motor cortical inhibition in humans (Fomenko et al., 2020). At the same time, a parallel research line has highlighted the potentially confounding influence of peripheral auditory stimulation arising from TUS pulsing at audible frequencies. In this study, we disentangle direct neuromodulatory and indirect auditory contributions to motor inhibitory effects of TUS. To this end, we include tightly matched control conditions across four experiments, one preregistered, conducted independently at three institutions. We employed a combined transcranial ultrasonic and magnetic stimulation paradigm, where TMS-elicited motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) served as an index of corticospinal excitability. First, we replicated motor inhibitory effects of TUS but showed through both tight controls and manipulation of stimulation intensity, duration, and auditory masking conditions that this inhibition was driven by peripheral auditory stimulation, not direct neuromodulation. Further, we consider neuromodulation beyond driving overall excitation/inhibition and show preliminary evidence of how TUS might interact with ongoing neural dynamics instead. Primarily, this study highlights the substantial shortcomings in accounting for the auditory confound in prior TUS-TMS work where only a flip-over sham and no active control was used. The field must critically reevaluate previous findings given the demonstrated impact of peripheral confounds. Further, rigorous experimental design via (in)active control conditions is required to make substantiated claims in future TUS studies. Only when direct effects are disentangled from those driven by peripheral confounds can TUS fully realize its potential for research and clinical applications.
- organism: human
- assay: electronic health records
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: experimental assay
- Citations
- 29
- FWCI
- 4.22
- Field percentile
- top 5%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Transcranial ultrasound stimulation in humans is associated with an auditory confound that can be effectively masked
Verena Braun, Joseph Blackmore, … Christopher Butler·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Sep 4, 2020
- Parameter optimisation for mitigating somatosensory confounds during transcranial ultrasonic stimulation
Benjamin R. Kop, Linda de Jong, … Lennart Verhagen·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Jun 11, 2025
- Transcranial focused ultrasound neuromodulation of the human primary motor cortex
Wynn Legon, Priya Bansal, … Jerel K. Mueller·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Jun 27, 2018
- No group-level changes in corticospinal excitability following low-intensity theta-burst ultrasound stimulation of the primary motor hand area.
J. Laugesen, Salvatore Bertino, … Hartwig Roman Siebner·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Sep 18, 2026
- Elimination of peripheral auditory pathway activation does not affect motor responses from ultrasound neuromodulation
Morteza Mohammadjavadi, Patrick Peiyong Ye, … Kim Butts Pauly·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Mar 6, 2019
- Ramped V1 transcranial ultrasonic stimulation modulates but does not evoke visual evoked potentials
Tulika Nandi, Ainslie Johnstone, … Charlotte Jane Stagg·Brain stimulationPeer-reviewed·Feb 6, 2023