Skip to main content
. 2019 Feb 12;8:e40541. doi: 10.7554/eLife.40541

Figure 3. Coupling of activity between stimulated areas and the rest of the brain in experiments 1 (SMA) and 2 (FPC).

The left panels show activity coupling between SMA and the rest of the brain in the control state (a), after SMA TUS (b), and after FPC TUS (c). The right panels show activity coupling between FPC and the rest of the brain in the control state (d), after SMA TUS (e), and after FPC TUS (f). Functional connectivity from TUS-targeted regions is therefore summarized in panels (b) and (f) (i.e. SMA connectivity after SMA TUS and FPC connectivity after FPC TUS). Each type of TUS had a relatively selective effect on the stimulated area: SMA coupling was changed by SMA TUS (b) and FPC coupling was changed by FPC TUS (f). Positive correlations are represented in warm colours from red to yellow, negative correlations are represented in cool colours from blue to green. Key regions of change are highlighted by black dashed ovals. TUS target sites are indicated with arrows. Connectivity seed regions are indicated with black asterisks. Key anatomical features are labelled in panel (a): pos, parieto-occipital sulcus; cal, calcarine sulcus; cgs, cingulate sulcus; ps, principal sulcus; as, arcuate sulcus; cs, central sulcus; ips, intraparietal sulcus; sts, superior temporal sulcus; ls, lunate sulcus.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Specific patterns of change in the coupling of activity between stimulated areas and the rest of the brain were replicated in experiments 2 and 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Panels on the left show activity coupling between SMA and the rest of the brain in the control state (a), after FPC TUS in experiment 2 (b), and after FPC TUS in experiment 3 (in three new animals) (c). Panels on the right show activity coupling between FPC and the rest of the brain in the control state (d), after FPC TUS in experiment 2 (e), and after FPC TUS in experiment 3 (f). SMA’s connectional fingerprint was largely unaltered after FPC TUS in both experiments 2 and 3 (g) but FPC’s connectivity fingerprint was altered in a similar manner in both experiments 2 and 3 (h). Panels (a, b) and (d, e) are reproduced here from Figure 3 for comparison. All conventions as in Figure 3. Lighter coloured error bands indicate the standard-error of the mean across individual animals.