4.5 Article

Hemodynamic responses to visual stimuli in cortex of adults and 3-to 4-year-old children

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1383, 期 -, 页码 242-251

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.01.090

关键词

Hemodynamics; Near-infrared spectroscopy; Preschool child; Occipital cortex; Vision

资金

  1. Knowledge Cluster Initiative from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  2. JSPS [40467098]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22653077, 22330204] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we used near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to measure relative changes in cortical hemodynamics from 19 adult and 19 preschool children (aged 3-4 years old), while they watched epochs of static and motion pictures extracted from TV programs. The spatio-temporal characteristics of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin volumes (oxy- and deoxy-Hb) of both subject groups were described and compared where appropriate for five regions of interest (ROIs). These were striate, left and right middle temporal, and left and right temporo-parietal areas. Over these areas, deoxy-Hb volumes did not differ between both groups. Preschool data showed significant increases in oxy-Hb over striate, middle temporal and temporo-parietal areas in response to visual motion stimuli. Static stimuli caused a significant oxy-Hb increase over striate and left middle temporal areas. Surprisingly, changes in adult oxy-Hb were not profound and did not show a significant oxy-Hb increase in striate and middle temporal areas in response to the motion stimuli, warranting further research. In spite of oxy-Hb volume differences, oxy-Hb recovery to baseline followed a similar pattern in both groups in response to both static and motion stimuli. Together, the results suggest that near-infrared spectroscopy is a viable method to investigate cortical development of preschool children by monitoring their hemodynamic response patterns. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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