Literature DB >> 15275922

Local landmark-based mapping of human auditory cortex.

Xiaojian Kang1, Olivier Bertrand, Kimmo Alho, E William Yund, Timothy J Herron, David L Woods.   

Abstract

Mammalian sensory cortex is functionally partitioned into cortical fields that are specialized for different processing operations. In theory, averaging functional and anatomical images across subjects can reveal both the average anatomy and the mean functional organization of sensory regions. However, this averaging process must overcome at least two obstacles: (1) the relative locations and sizes of cortical sensory areas vary in different subjects so that across-subject averaging introduces spatial smearing; (2) the relative locations and sizes of cortical areas vary between hemispheres, making it difficult to compare activations between hemispheres or to combine activations across hemispheres. These difficulties are particularly acute for small cortical regions such as auditory cortex. In whole-brain averaging procedures, considerable intersubject variance in the location and orientation of auditory cortex is introduced by variance of the size and shape of structures outside auditory cortex. Here, we compared these global methods with local landmark-based methods (LLMs) that use warping based on local anatomical landmarks. In comparison to maps made with global methods, LLMs produced anatomical maps of auditory cortex with clearer gyral and sulcal structure, and produce functional maps with improved resolution. These results suggest that LLMs have significant advantages over global mapping procedures in studying the details of auditory cortex organization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15275922     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.04.013

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


  8 in total

1.  Stimulus-specific suppression preserves information in auditory short-term memory.

Authors:  Annika C Linke; Alejandro Vicente-Grabovetsky; Rhodri Cusack
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Mapping phonemic processing zones along human perisylvian cortex: an electro-corticographic investigation.

Authors:  Sophie Molholm; Manuel R Mercier; Einat Liebenthal; Theodore H Schwartz; Walter Ritter; John J Foxe; Pierfilippo De Sanctis
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 3.270

3.  Tonotopic organization of human auditory cortex.

Authors:  Colin Humphries; Einat Liebenthal; Jeffrey R Binder
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Reducing inter-subject anatomical variation: effect of normalization method on sensitivity of functional magnetic resonance imaging data analysis in auditory cortex and the superior temporal region.

Authors:  Amir M Tahmasebi; Purang Abolmaesumi; Zane Z Zheng; Kevin G Munhall; Ingrid S Johnsrude
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Phonological processing in human auditory cortical fields.

Authors:  David L Woods; Timothy J Herron; Anthony D Cate; Xiaojian Kang; E W Yund
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Functional properties of human auditory cortical fields.

Authors:  David L Woods; Timothy J Herron; Anthony D Cate; E William Yund; G Christopher Stecker; Teemu Rinne; X Kang
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2010-12-03

7.  Baseline shifts do not predict attentional modulation of target processing during feature-based visual attention.

Authors:  Sean P Fannon; Clifford D Saron; George R Mangun
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Functional maps of human auditory cortex: effects of acoustic features and attention.

Authors:  David L Woods; G Christopher Stecker; Teemu Rinne; Timothy J Herron; Anthony D Cate; E William Yund; Isaac Liao; Xiaojian Kang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.