4.7 Article

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

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 1510-1521

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.7
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