BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical validation of magnetization transfer (MT) imaging is important for investigating clinical disease and organization of normal brain function. We determined whether an in vivo quantitative measure sensitive to white matter is distributed in functionally important ways. METHODS: Axial 1.5-T MR images with and those without MT were obtained. MT ratios (MTRs) were computed for 33 regions of interest (ROIs) in 27 healthy adults (aged 18-69 years) without evidence of cognitive or radiographic abnormalities. Three tests of reliability yielded coefficients above 0.97. MTRs for the whole brain, groups of structures, and individual ROIs were calculated. Low standard errors confirmed the consistency of the technique. RESULTS: Age, education, sex, and hand dominance were not correlated with whole-brain MTR (mean = 37.35, SD = 1.25), but age was associated with the cerebellum and some lobes at a trend level. MTRs were as follows, in descending order: corpus callosum, cingulate, white matter, brain stem, subcortical nuclei, and cerebellum. MTRs were selectively higher in the prefrontal lobe versus the posterior frontal lobe and in the lateral temporal lobe versus medial temporal lobe. MTR was higher in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere for the whole brain, frontal and temporal lobes, and lenticular nuclei. CONCLUSION: MT imaging showed selective age, medial-lateral, and hemispheric differences, giving evidence of normal aging effects on the white matter in the absence of T2- weighted hyperintensities. These differences support neurocognitive theories of the organization of brain function. MT imaging appears to be a robust technique for use in cognitive neuroscience.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical validation of magnetization transfer (MT) imaging is important for investigating clinical disease and organization of normal brain function. We determined whether an in vivo quantitative measure sensitive to white matter is distributed in functionally important ways. METHODS: Axial 1.5-T MR images with and those without MT were obtained. MT ratios (MTRs) were computed for 33 regions of interest (ROIs) in 27 healthy adults (aged 18-69 years) without evidence of cognitive or radiographic abnormalities. Three tests of reliability yielded coefficients above 0.97. MTRs for the whole brain, groups of structures, and individual ROIs were calculated. Low standard errors confirmed the consistency of the technique. RESULTS: Age, education, sex, and hand dominance were not correlated with whole-brain MTR (mean = 37.35, SD = 1.25), but age was associated with the cerebellum and some lobes at a trend level. MTRs were as follows, in descending order: corpus callosum, cingulate, white matter, brain stem, subcortical nuclei, and cerebellum. MTRs were selectively higher in the prefrontal lobe versus the posterior frontal lobe and in the lateral temporal lobe versus medial temporal lobe. MTR was higher in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere for the whole brain, frontal and temporal lobes, and lenticular nuclei. CONCLUSION: MT imaging showed selective age, medial-lateral, and hemispheric differences, giving evidence of normal aging effects on the white matter in the absence of T2- weighted hyperintensities. These differences support neurocognitive theories of the organization of brain function. MT imaging appears to be a robust technique for use in cognitive neuroscience.
Authors: Yulin Ge; Robert I Grossman; James S Babb; Marcie L Rabin; Lois J Mannon; Dennis L Kolson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C L Armstrong; J V Hunter; G E Ledakis; B Cohen; E M Tallent; B H Goldstein; Z Tochner; R Lustig; K D Judy; A Pruitt; J E Mollman; E M Stanczak; M Y Jo; T L Than; P Phillips Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-07-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Mark E Bastin; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Karen J Ferguson; Laura J Brown; Joanna M Wardlaw; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Jonathan D Clayden Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Cornelia Laule; Irene M Vavasour; Shannon H Kolind; David K B Li; Tony L Traboulsee; G R Wayne Moore; Alex L MacKay Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Leen Serbruyns; Inge Leunissen; Peter van Ruitenbeek; Lisa Pauwels; Karen Caeyenberghs; Elena Solesio-Jofre; Monique Geurts; Koen Cuypers; Raf L Meesen; Stefan Sunaert; Alexander Leemans; Stephan P Swinnen Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Andrew L Alexander; Samuel A Hurley; Alexey A Samsonov; Nagesh Adluru; Ameer Pasha Hosseinbor; Pouria Mossahebi; Do P M Tromp; Elizabeth Zakszewski; Aaron S Field Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2012-01-27
Authors: Suzan Maleki; Yann Chye; Xiaoliu Zhang; Linden Parkes; Samuel R Chamberlain; Leonardo F Fontenelle; Leah Braganza; George Youssef; Valentina Lorenzetti; Ben J Harrison; Murat Yücel; Chao Suo Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: H Vrenken; J J G Geurts; D L Knol; C H Polman; J A Castelijns; P J W Pouwels; F Barkhof Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Faith M Gunning-Dixon; Adam M Brickman; Janice C Cheng; George S Alexopoulos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.485