4.5 Article

Olfactory fMRI: Implications of Stimulation Length and Repetition Time

期刊

CHEMICAL SENSES
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 389-398

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjy025

关键词

fMRI; olfaction; smell; repetition time

资金

  1. Swedish Parkinson Foundation, Linkoping University Hospital Research Fund
  2. ALF Grants from Region Ostergotland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studying olfaction with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) poses various methodological challenges. This study aimed to investigate the effects of stimulation length and repetition time (TR) on the activation pattern of 4 olfactory brain regions: the anterior and the posterior piriform cortex, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula. Twenty-two healthy participants with normal olfaction were examined with fMRI, with 2 stimulation lengths (6 s and 15 s) and 2 TRs (0.901 s and 1.34 s). Data were analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM), Tensorial Independent Component Analysis (TICA), and by plotting the event-related time course of brain activation in the 4 olfactory regions of interest. The statistical analysis of the time courses revealed that short TR was associated with more pronounced signal increase and short stimulation was associated with shorter time to peak signal. Additionally, both long stimulation and short TR were associated with oscillatory time courses, whereas both short stimulation and short TR resulted in more typical time courses. GLM analysis showed that the combination of short stimulation and short TR could result in visually larger activation within these olfactory areas. TICA validated that the tested paradigm was spatially and temporally associated with a functionally connected network that included all 4 olfactory regions. In conclusion, the combination of short stimulation and short TR is associated with higher signal increase and shorter time to peak, making it more amenable to standard GLM-type analyses than long stimulation and long TR, and it should, thus, be preferable for olfactory fMRI.

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

4.5
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