Literature DB >> 19269764

Optimizing the imaging of the monkey auditory cortex: sparse vs. continuous fMRI.

Christopher I Petkov1, Christoph Kayser, Mark Augath, Nikos K Logothetis.   

Abstract

The noninvasive imaging of the monkey auditory system with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can bridge the gap between electrophysiological studies in monkeys and imaging studies in humans. Some of the recent imaging of monkey auditory cortical and subcortical structures relies on a technique of "sparse imaging," which was developed in human studies to sidestep the negative influence of scanner noise by adding periods of silence in between volume acquisition. Among the various aspects that have gone into the ongoing optimization of fMRI of the monkey auditory cortex, replacing the more common continuous-imaging paradigm with sparse imaging seemed to us to make the most obvious difference in the amount of activity that we could reliably obtain from awake or anesthetized animals. Here, we directly compare the sparse- and continuous-imaging paradigms in anesthetized animals. We document a strikingly greater auditory response with sparse imaging, both quantitatively and qualitatively, which includes a more expansive and robust tonotopic organization. There were instances where continuous imaging could better reveal organizational properties that sparse imaging missed, such as aspects of the hierarchical organization of auditory cortex. We consider the choice of imaging paradigm as a key component in optimizing the fMRI of the monkey auditory cortex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19269764     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2009.01.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  16 in total

1.  Multivariate sensitivity to voice during auditory categorization.

Authors:  Yune Sang Lee; Jonathan E Peelle; David Kraemer; Samuel Lloyd; Richard Granger
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Auditory motion processing after early blindness.

Authors:  Fang Jiang; G Christopher Stecker; Ione Fine
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Orthogonal acoustic dimensions define auditory field maps in human cortex.

Authors:  Brian Barton; Jonathan H Venezia; Kourosh Saberi; Gregory Hickok; Alyssa A Brewer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Overview of potential procedural and participant-related confounds for neuroimaging of the resting state.

Authors:  Niall W Duncan; Georg Northoff
Journal:  J Psychiatry Neurosci       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.186

5.  Mapping the tonotopic organization in human auditory cortex with minimally salient acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Dave R M Langers; Pim van Dijk
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 5.357

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.  High-field functional magnetic resonance imaging of vocalization processing in marmosets.

Authors:  Srivatsun Sadagopan; Nesibe Z Temiz-Karayol; Henning U Voss
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Parcellation of Human and Monkey Core Auditory Cortex with fMRI Pattern Classification and Objective Detection of Tonotopic Gradient Reversals.

Authors:  Marc Schönwiesner; Peter Dechent; Dirk Voit; Christopher I Petkov; Katrin Krumbholz
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  Optimized design and analysis of sparse-sampling FMRI experiments.

Authors:  Tyler K Perrachione; Satrajit S Ghosh
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the ascending stages of the auditory system in dogs.

Authors:  Jan-Peter Bach; Matthias Lüpke; Peter Dziallas; Patrick Wefstaedt; Stefan Uppenkamp; Hermann Seifert; Ingo Nolte
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.