4.7 Article

Consistency and variability in functional localisers

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 1018-1026

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.014

关键词

fMRI; Reading; Object recognition; Posterior fusiform gyrus; Functional localiser; Occipito-temporal cortex

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [075481] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A critical assumption underlying the use of functional localiser scans is that the voxels identified as the functional region-of-interest (fROI) are essentially the same as those activated by the main experimental manipulation. Intra-subject variability in the location of the fROI violates this assumption, reducing the sensitivity of the analysis and biasing the results. Here we investigated consistency and variability in MOB in a set of 45 volunteers. They performed two functional localiser scans to identify word- and object-sensitive regions of ventral and lateral occipito-temporal cortex, respectively. In the main analyses, fROIs were defined as the category-selective voxels in each region and consistency was measured as the spatial overlap between scans. Consistency was greatest when minimally selective thresholds were used to define active voxels (p<0.05 uncorrected), revealing that approximately 65% of the voxels were commonly activated by both scans. In contrast, highly selective thresholds (p<10(-4) to 10(-6)) yielded the lowest consistency values with less than 25% overlap of the voxels active in both scans. In other words, intra-subject variability was surprisingly high, with between one third and three quarters of the voxels in a given fROI not corresponding to those activated in the main task. This level of variability stands in striking contrast to the consistency seen in retinotopically-defined areas and has important implications for designing robust but efficient functional localiser scans. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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