4.5 Article

Correlation between single-trial visual evoked potentials and the blood oxygenation level dependent response in simultaneously recorded electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 252-260

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.23227

Keywords

electroencephalography; visual evoked potential; functional magnetic resonance imaging; alpha power

Funding

  1. Lundbeck Foundation via the Lundbeck Foundation Center for Neurovascular Signaling (LUCENS)
  2. Simon Fougner Hartmann's Family Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To compare different electroencephalography (EEG)-based regressors and their ability to predict the simultaneously recorded blood oxygenation level dependent response during blocked visual stimulation, simultaneous EEGfunctional magnetic resonance imaging in 10 healthy volunteers was performed. The performance of different single-trial EEG regressors was compared in terms of predicting the measured blood oxygenation level dependent response. The EEG-based regressors were the amplitude and latency of the primary positive (P1) and negative (N2) peaks of the visual evoked potential, the combined P1N2 amplitude, and the alpha power. Apart from peak latencies, all regressors showed significant positive or negative correlation with the blood oxygenation level dependent response in visual cortex. In addition, several EEG-based regressors were found to predict blood oxygenation level dependent variations in different occipital and extraoccipital cortical areas not explained by the boxcar regressor. The results suggest that the P1N2 regressor is the best EEG-based regressor to model the visual paradigm, but when looking for additional effects like habituation or attention modulation that cannot be modeled by the boxcar regressor, it is better to include regressors based on individual peaks or alpha power. Magn Reson Med, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available