4.7 Article

Regional differences in the coupling of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism changes in response to activation: Implications for BOLD-fMRI

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 1510-1521

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.015

Keywords

cerebral blood flow; cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption; neurovascular coupling; hypercapnia; blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) effect; arterial spin labeling (ASL); fMRI; lentiform nuclei of the basal ganglia

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR000827, M01 RR 000827] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [K23 MH081786-03, K23 MH081786-01, K23 MH081786, K23 MH081786-02, 1 K23 MH 081786] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS042069, NS 36722, R01 NS036722, NS 42069] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) based on blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal changes is a sensitive tool for mapping brain activation, but quantitative interpretation of the BOLD response is problematic. The BOLD response is primarily driven by cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes, but is moderated by M, a scaling parameter reflecting baseline deoxyhemoglobin, and n, the ratio of fractional changes in CBF to cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption (CMRO2). We compared M and n between cortical (visual cortex, VC) and subcortical (lentiform nuclei, LN) regions using a quantitative approach based on calibrating the BOLD response with a hypercapnia experiment. Although M was similar in both regions (similar to 5.8%), differences in n (2.21 +/- 0.03 in VC and 1.58 +/- 0.03 in LN; Cohen d=1.71) produced substantially weaker (similar to 3.7x) subcortical than cortical BOLD responses relative to CMRO2 changes. Because of this strong sensitivity to n, BOLD response amplitudes cannot be interpreted as a quantitative reflection of underlying metabolic changes, particularly when comparing cortical and subcortical regions. (C) 2007 Published by Elsevier 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available