4.6 Article

Changes in cerebral blood flow and cerebral oxygen metabolism during neural activation measured by positron emission tomography: comparison with blood oxygenation level-dependent contrast measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 371-377

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600030

Keywords

BOLD; CBF; CMRO2; MRI; PET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discrepancy between the increases in cerebral blood flow (CBF) and CMRO2 during neural activation causes an increase in venous blood oxygenation and, therefore, a decrease in paramagnetic deoxyhemoglobin concentration in venous blood. This can be detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) contrast. In the present study, changes in the cerebral oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) that corresponds to the ratio of CMRO2 to CBF, and in the BOLD signal during neural activation, were measured by both positron emission tomography (PET) and fMRI in the same human subjects. (CO)-O-15, O-15(2), and (H2O)-O-15 PET studies were performed in each subject at rest (baseline) and during performance of a right-hand motor task. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies were then performed to measure the BOLD signal under the two conditions. During performance of the motor task, a significant increase in CBF and a significant decrease in OEF were observed in the left precentral gyrus, left superior frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus, right cingulate gyrus, and right cerebellum. A significant positive correlation was observed between changes in the CBF and the BOLD signal, and a significant negative correlation was observed between changes in the OEF and the BOLD signal. This supports the assumption on which BOLD contrast studies during neural activation are based.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available