4.7 Article

Linking inter-individual differences in neural activation and behavior to intrinsic brain dynamics

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 2950-2959

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.046

关键词

Resting state; Intrinsic; Extrinsic; Functional networks; fALFF

资金

  1. NIMH [R01MH083246, K23MH087770]
  2. Autism Speaks
  3. Stavros Niarchos Foundation
  4. Leon Levy Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The brain's energy economy excessively favors intrinsic, spontaneous neural activity over extrinsic, evoked activity, presumably to maintain its internal organization. Emerging hypotheses capable of explaining such an investment posit that the brain's intrinsic functional architecture encodes a blueprint for its repertoire of responses to the external world. Yet, there is little evidence directly linking intrinsic and extrinsic activity in the brain. Here we relate differences among individuals in the magnitude of task-evoked activity during performance of an Eriksen flanker task, to spontaneous oscillatory phenomena observed during rest Specifically, we focused on the amplitude of low-frequency oscillations (LFO, 0.01-0.1 Hz) present in the BOLD signal. LFO amplitude measures obtained during rest successfully predicted the magnitude of task-evoked activity in a variety of regions that were all activated during performance of the flanker task In these regions, higher LFO amplitude at rest predicted higher task-evoked activity. LFO amplitude measures obtained during rest were also found to have robust predictive value for behavior. In midline cingulate regions, LFO amplitudes predicted not only the speed and consistency of performance but also the magnitude of the behavioral congruency effect embedded in the flanker task. These results support the emerging hypothesis that the brain's repertoire of responses to the external world are represented and updated in the brain's intrinsic functional architecture. (C) 2010 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