↓ Skip to main content

Scanning fast and slow: current limitations of 3 Tesla functional MRI and future potential

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Scanning fast and slow: current limitations of 3 Tesla functional MRI and future potential
Published in
Frontiers in Physics, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphy.2014.00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roland N. Boubela, Klaudius Kalcher, Christian Nasel, Ewald Moser

Abstract

Functional MRI at 3T has become a workhorse for the neurosciences, e.g., neurology, psychology, and psychiatry, enabling non-invasive investigation of brain function and connectivity. However, BOLD-based fMRI is a rather indirect measure of brain function, confounded by physiology related signals, e.g., head or brain motion, brain pulsation, blood flow, intermixed with susceptibility differences close or distant to the region of neuronal activity. Even though a plethora of preprocessing strategies have been published to address these confounds, their efficiency is still under discussion. In particular, physiological signal fluctuations closely related to brain supply may mask BOLD signal changes related to "true" neuronal activation. Here we explore recent technical and methodological advancements aimed at disentangling the various components, employing fast multiband vs. standard EPI, in combination with fast temporal ICA. Our preliminary results indicate that fast (TR <0.5 s) scanning may help to identify and eliminate physiologic components, increasing tSNR and functional contrast. In addition, biological variability can be studied and task performance better correlated to other measures. This should increase specificity and reliability in fMRI studies. Furthermore, physiological signal changes during scanning may then be recognized as a source of information rather than a nuisance. As we are currently still undersampling the complexity of the brain, even at a rather coarse macroscopic level, we should be very cautious in the interpretation of neuroscientific findings, in particular when comparing different groups (e.g., age, sex, medication, pathology, etc.). From a technical point of view our goal should be to sample brain activity at layer specific resolution with low TR, covering as much of the brain as possible without violating SAR limits. We hope to stimulate discussion toward a better understanding and a more quantitative use of fMRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 3 4%
Germany 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 61 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Professor 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 26%
Psychology 9 13%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2014.
All research outputs
#20,219,902
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physics
#1,581
of 3,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,758
of 305,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physics
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,393 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.