OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to record BOLD-fMRI interleaved with evoked potentials for single-epochs of visual stimulation and to investigate the possible relationship between these two measures. METHODS: Sparse recording of fMRI and EEG allowed us to measure BOLD responses and evoked potentials on an epoch-by-epoch basis. To obtain robust estimates of evoked potentials, we used blocks of contrast-reversing visual stimuli eliciting steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). For each block we acquired one volume of fMRI data and we then tested for co-variations between SSVEPs and fMRI signals. Our analyses tested for frequency-specific co-variation between the two measurements that could not be explained by the mere presence/absence of the visual stimulation. RESULTS: Condition-specific single-epoch SSVEPs and fMRI responses were observed at occipital sites. Combined SSVEPs-fMRI analysis at the single-epoch level did not reveal any significant correlation between the two recordings. However, both signals contained stimulation-specific linear decreases that may relate to neuronal habituation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate robust estimation of single-epoch evoked potentials and fMRI responses during interleaved recording, using visual steady-state stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Single-epochs analysis of evoked potentials and fMRI signals is feasible for interleaved SSVEPs-fMRI recordings.
OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to record BOLD-fMRI interleaved with evoked potentials for single-epochs of visual stimulation and to investigate the possible relationship between these two measures. METHODS: Sparse recording of fMRI and EEG allowed us to measure BOLD responses and evoked potentials on an epoch-by-epoch basis. To obtain robust estimates of evoked potentials, we used blocks of contrast-reversing visual stimuli eliciting steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs). For each block we acquired one volume of fMRI data and we then tested for co-variations between SSVEPs and fMRI signals. Our analyses tested for frequency-specific co-variation between the two measurements that could not be explained by the mere presence/absence of the visual stimulation. RESULTS: Condition-specific single-epoch SSVEPs and fMRI responses were observed at occipital sites. Combined SSVEPs-fMRI analysis at the single-epoch level did not reveal any significant correlation between the two recordings. However, both signals contained stimulation-specific linear decreases that may relate to neuronal habituation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate robust estimation of single-epoch evoked potentials and fMRI responses during interleaved recording, using visual steady-state stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: Single-epochs analysis of evoked potentials and fMRI signals is feasible for interleaved SSVEPs-fMRI recordings.
Authors: Jingyuan E Chen; Gary H Glover; Nina E Fultz; Bruce R Rosen; Jonathan R Polimeni; Laura D Lewis Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 7.400
Authors: Kelly Smart; Heather Liu; David Matuskey; Ming-Kai Chen; Kristen Torres; Nabeel Nabulsi; David Labaree; Jim Ropchan; Ansel T Hillmer; Yiyun Huang; Richard E Carson Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Kien Trong Nguyen; Wei-Kuang Liang; Victor Lee; Wen-Sheng Chang; Neil G Muggleton; Jia-Rong Yeh; Norden E Huang; Chi-Hung Juan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Chi-Hung Juan; Kien Trong Nguyen; Wei-Kuang Liang; Andrew J Quinn; Yen-Hsun Chen; Neil G Muggleton; Jia-Rong Yeh; Mark W Woolrich; Anna C Nobre; Norden E Huang Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 4.677