4.7 Article

Imaging artifacts induced by electrical stimulation during conventional fMRI of the brain

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 1040-1047

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.026

关键词

fMRI; Post-mortem; Brain; tDCS; tACS; Modeling

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH092926] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of brain activation during transcranial electrical stimulation is used to provide insight into the mechanisms of neuromodulation and targeting of particular brain structures. However, the passage of current through the body may interfere with the concurrent detection of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal, which is sensitive to local magnetic fields. To test whether these currents can affect concurrent fMRI recordings we performed conventional gradient echo-planar imaging (EPI) during transcranial direct current (tDCS) and alternating current stimulation (tACS) on two post-mortem subjects. tDCS induced signals in both superficial and deep structures. The signal was specific to the electrode montage, with the strongest signal near cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and scalp. The direction of change relative to non-stimulation reversed with tDCS stimulation polarity. For tACS there was no net effect of the MRI signal. High-resolution individualized modeling of current flow and induced static magnetic fields suggested a strong coincidence of the change EPI signal with regions of large current density and magnetic fields. These initial results indicate that (1) fMRI studies of tDCS must consider this potentially confounding interference from current flow and (2) conventional MRI imaging protocols can be potentially used to measure current flow during transcranial electrical stimulation. The optimization of current measurement and artifact correction techniques, including consideration of the underlying physics, remains to be addressed. (C) 2012 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