OBJECTIVES: To illuminate the current methodological and conceptual pitfalls inherent in conducting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research with individuals who have sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss appropriate remedies. The aim is describe fMRI research, its limitations, and how to best use this technology to examine TBI. DISCUSSION: The topics discussed in this article include issues regarding signal detection, brain activation measurement, head movement, and sources of signal artifact. Issues surrounding data interpretation and the importance of analyzing the brain as a connected neural network is also discussed. Finally, problems with spatial normalization when examining individuals with TBI are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is a scarcity of research applying fMRI technology to the study of TBI. However, because it is a noninvasive procedure with high availability in hospital settings across the country, the next decade of TBI research will likely include a proliferation of this form of investigation. At this time, much work is needed to better understand how to optimally use this technology to examine the effects of TBI on behavior. For fMRI to enhance TBI research it will be imperative to establish valid research protocols and reliable methods of data interpretation.
OBJECTIVES: To illuminate the current methodological and conceptual pitfalls inherent in conducting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research with individuals who have sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss appropriate remedies. The aim is describe fMRI research, its limitations, and how to best use this technology to examine TBI. DISCUSSION: The topics discussed in this article include issues regarding signal detection, brain activation measurement, head movement, and sources of signal artifact. Issues surrounding data interpretation and the importance of analyzing the brain as a connected neural network is also discussed. Finally, problems with spatial normalization when examining individuals with TBI are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is a scarcity of research applying fMRI technology to the study of TBI. However, because it is a noninvasive procedure with high availability in hospital settings across the country, the next decade of TBI research will likely include a proliferation of this form of investigation. At this time, much work is needed to better understand how to optimally use this technology to examine the effects of TBI on behavior. For fMRI to enhance TBI research it will be imperative to establish valid research protocols and reliable methods of data interpretation.
Authors: Franck Amyot; Trelawny Zimmermann; Jason Riley; Jana M Kainerstorfer; Victor Chernomordik; Eric Mooshagian; Laleh Najafizadeh; Frank Krueger; Amir H Gandjbakhche; Eric M Wassermann Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christopher N Sozda; Michael J Larson; David A S Kaufman; Ilona M Schmalfuss; William M Perlstein Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Robert W Van Boven; Greg S Harrington; David B Hackney; Andreas Ebel; Grant Gauger; J Douglas Bremner; Mark D'Esposito; John A Detre; E Mark Haacke; Clifford R Jack; William J Jagust; Denis Le Bihan; Chester A Mathis; Susanne Mueller; Pratik Mukherjee; Norbert Schuff; Anthony Chen; Michael W Weiner Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2009
Authors: Andrei Irimia; Bo Wang; Stephen R Aylward; Marcel W Prastawa; Danielle F Pace; Guido Gerig; David A Hovda; Ron Kikinis; Paul M Vespa; John D Van Horn Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Fabienne Cazalis; Talin Babikian; Christopher Giza; Sarah Copeland; David Hovda; Robert F Asarnow Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: David B Arciniegas; C Alan Anderson; Jeannie Topkoff; Thomas W McAllister Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.570