4.6 Article

Negative BOLD-fMRI signals in large cerebral veins

期刊

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.164

关键词

anticorrelated resting-state patterns; ependymal and pial vessels; high-resolution fMRI; large veins; negative BOLD; periventricular areas; 7T

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reductions in blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD)-functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals below baseline levels have been observed under several conditions as negative activation in task-activation studies or anticorrelation in resting-state experiments. Converging evidence suggests that negative BOLD signals (NBSs) can generally be explained by local reductions in neural activity. Here, we report on NBSs that accompany hemodynamic changes in regions devoid of neural tissue. The NBSs were investigated with high-resolution studies of the visual cortex (VC) at 7 T. Task-activation studies were performed to localize a task-positive area in the VC. During rest, robust negative correlation with the task-positive region was observed in focal regions near the ventricles and dispersed throughout the VC. Both positive and NBSs were dependent on behavioral condition. Comparison with high-resolution structural images showed that negatively correlated regions overlapped with larger pial and ependymal veins near sulcal and ventricular cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Results from multiecho fMRI showed that NBSs were consistent with increases in local blood volume. These findings confirm theoretical predictions that tie neural activity to blood volume increases, which tend to counteract positive fMRI signal changes associated with increased blood oxygenation. This effect may be more salient in high-resolution studies, in which positive and NBS may be more often spatially distinct. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2011) 31, 401-412; doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.164; published online 22 September 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据