4.7 Article

Noncanonical spike-related BOLD responses in focal epilepsy

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 329-345

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20389

关键词

epilepsy; fMRI; EEG; EEG-fMRI; BOLD; haemodynamic response; localization

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9805989, G0301067, G0200216] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [G0301067, G9805989, G0200216] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust [G67176, 067176] Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [G0301067, G9805989] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Till now, most studies of the Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent (BOLD) response to interictal epileptic discharges (IED) have assumed that its time course matches closely to that of brief physiological stimuli, commonly called the canonical event-related haemodynamic response function (canonical HRF). Analyses based on that assumption have produced significant response patterns that are generally concordant with prior electroclinical data. In this work, we used a more flexible model of the event-related response, a Fourier basis set, to investigate the presence of other responses in relation to individual IED in 30 experiments in patients with focal epilepsy. We found significant responses that had a noncanonical time course in 37% of cases, compared with 40% for the conventional, canonical HRF-based approach. In two cases, the Fourier analysis suggested activations where the conventional model did not. The noncanonical activations were almost always remote from the presumed generator of epileptiform activity. In the majority of cases with noncanonical responses, the noncanonical responses in single-voxel clusters were suggestive of artifacts. We did not find evidence for IED-related noncanonical HRFs arising from areas of pathology, suggesting that the BOLD response to IED is primarily canonical. Noncanonical responses may represent a number of phenomena, including artefacts and propagated epileptiform activity.

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