Literature DB >> 11707091

Can meaningful effective connectivities be obtained between auditory cortical regions?

M S Gonçalves1, D A Hall, I S Johnsrude, M P Haggard.   

Abstract

Structural equation modeling (SEM) of neuroimaging data can be evaluated both for the goodness of fit of the model and for the strength of path coefficients (as an index of effective connectivity). SEM of auditory fMRI data is made difficult by the necessary sparse temporal sampling of the time series (to avoid contamination of auditory activation by the response to scanner noise) and by the paucity of well-defined anatomical information to constrain the functional model. We used SEM (i.e., a model incorporating latent variables) to investigate how well fMRI data in four adjacent cortical fields can be described as an auditory network. Seven of the 14 models (2 hemispheres x (6 subjects and 1 group)) produced a plausible description of the measured data. Since the auditory model to be tested is not fully validated by anatomical data, our approach requires that goodness of fit be confirmed to ensure generalizability of connectivity patterns. For good-fitting models, connectivity patterns varied significantly across subjects and were not replicable across stimulus conditions. SEM of central auditory function therefore appears to be highly sensitive to the voxel-selection procedure and/or the sampling of the time series. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11707091     DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0954

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  18 in total

1.  Changes in effective connectivity models in the presence of task-correlated motion: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Maria Gavrilescu; Geoffrey W Stuart; Anthony Waites; Graeme Jackson; Imants D Svalbe; Gary F Egan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  fMRI investigation of unexpected somatosensory feedback perturbation during speech.

Authors:  Elisa Golfinopoulos; Jason A Tourville; Jason W Bohland; Satrajit S Ghosh; Alfonso Nieto-Castanon; Frank H Guenther
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Modeling Dynamic Functional Neuroimaging Data Using Structural Equation Modeling.

Authors:  Larry R Price; Angela R Laird; Peter T Fox; Roger J Ingham
Journal:  Struct Equ Modeling       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.125

4.  Investigating the neural basis for functional and effective connectivity. Application to fMRI.

Authors:  Barry Horwitz; Brent Warner; Julie Fitzer; M-A Tagamets; Fatima T Husain; Theresa W Long
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2005-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  A method for using blocked and event-related fMRI data to study "resting state" functional connectivity.

Authors:  Damien A Fair; Bradley L Schlaggar; Alexander L Cohen; Francis M Miezin; Nico U F Dosenbach; Kristin K Wenger; Michael D Fox; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Steven E Petersen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Testing effective connectivity changes with structural equation modeling: what does a bad model tell us?

Authors:  Andrea B Protzner; Anthony R McIntosh
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 7.  Mapping cognitive function.

Authors:  Steven M Stufflebeam; Bruce R Rosen
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Large-scale neural model validation of partial correlation analysis for effective connectivity investigation in functional MRI.

Authors:  G Marrelec; J Kim; J Doyon; B Horwitz
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 9.  Assessing functional connectivity in the human brain by fMRI.

Authors:  Baxter P Rogers; Victoria L Morgan; Allen T Newton; John C Gore
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.546

10.  The Effects of Computational Method, Data Modeling, and TR on Effective Connectivity Results.

Authors:  Suzanne T Witt; M Elizabeth Meyerand
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.978

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.