4.7 Article

Analysis of the EEG-fMRI response to prolonged bursts of interictal epileptiform activity

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 1099-1112

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.010

关键词

EEG-fMRI; interictal epileptiform activity; haemodynamic response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of combined EEG-fMRI to study interictal epileptiform activity is increasing and has great potential as a clinical, tool, but the haemodynamic response to epileptiform activity remains incompletely characterised. To this end, 19 data sets from 14 patients with prolonged bursts of focal or generalised interictal epileptiform activity lasting up to 15 s were analysed. To determine whether the inclusion of the durations of the epileptic events in the general linear model resulted in increased statistical significance of activated regions, statistical maps were generated with and without the event durations. The mean differences when including the durations were a 14.5% increase in peak t value and a 29.5% increase in volume of activation. This suggests that when analysing EEG-fMRI data from patients with prolonged bursts of interictal epileptiform activity, it is better to include the event durations. To determine whether the amplitudes and latencies of the measured responses were consistent with the general linear model, the haemodynamic response functions for bursts of different durations were calculated and compared with the model predictions. The measured amplitude of the response to the shortest duration events was consistently larger than predicted, which is consistent with studies in normal subjects. For the two data sets with the widest range of event durations, the measured amplitudes increased with the durations of the events without evidence of the plateau that was expected from the general linear model. There were no consistent differences between the measured and modelled latencies. (C) 2004 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