4.7 Article

Combined imaging-histological study of cortical laminar specificity of fMRI signals

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 879-887

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.016

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41-RR008079] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R21EB004460] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [R01MH70800-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the commencement of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), great effort has been put into increasing its spatial resolution and signal specificity from vessel-weighted to more tissue-specific signals. The working assumption is that the tissue signals closely mirror changes at the neuronal level. While great progress has been made, the basic and most fundamental questions remain unanswered: where in the gray matter do these tissue fMRI changes occur? Recently, the temporal correspondence of hemodynamic-based FMRI signals and neurophysiological activity was explored. The data suggest, although not conclusively, that the local field potential (LFP) response gives a better estimate of changes that accompany increased neuronal activity. LFP are thought to be generated by synaptic activity reflecting input signals into layer IV within a cortical region. If so, the spatial distribution of the fMRI signal should be specific to the corresponding cortical lamina. Here, in a combined imaging and histological study, the spatial characteristics of fNIRI signals across the lamina were explored. In a high-resolution fMRI study (0.15 x 0.15 x 2 mm), the spatial specificity of fMRI signals was correlated with the underlying cortical laminar cytoarchitectonic obtained within the same animal and tissue region. We demonstrate that when surface vessels are excluded highresolution fMRI signals peak at cortical layer IV. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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