BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in white matter has long been considered controversial. Recently, this viewpoint has been challenged by an emerging body of evidence demonstrating white matter activation in the corpus callosum. The current study aimed to determine whether white matter activation could be detected outside of the corpus callosum, in the internal capsule. Data were acquired from a 4 T MRI using a specialized asymmetric spin echo spiral sequence. A motor task was selected to elicit activation in the posterior limb of the internal capsule. RESULTS: White matter fMRI activation was examined at the individual and group levels. Analyses revealed that activation was present in the posterior limb of the internal capsule in 80% of participants. These results provide further support for white matter fMRI activation. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to visualize functionally active tracts has strong implications for the basic scientific study of connectivity and the clinical assessment of white matter disease.
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in white matter has long been considered controversial. Recently, this viewpoint has been challenged by an emerging body of evidence demonstrating white matter activation in the corpus callosum. The current study aimed to determine whether white matter activation could be detected outside of the corpus callosum, in the internal capsule. Data were acquired from a 4 T MRI using a specialized asymmetric spin echo spiral sequence. A motor task was selected to elicit activation in the posterior limb of the internal capsule. RESULTS: White matter fMRI activation was examined at the individual and group levels. Analyses revealed that activation was present in the posterior limb of the internal capsule in 80% of participants. These results provide further support for white matter fMRI activation. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to visualize functionally active tracts has strong implications for the basic scientific study of connectivity and the clinical assessment of white matter disease.
Authors: B Weber; V Treyer; N Oberholzer; T Jaermann; P Boesiger; P Brugger; M Regard; A Buck; S Savazzi; C A Marzi Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: R Donzelli; S Marinkovic; L Brigante; O de Divitiis; I Nikodijevic; C Schonauer; F Maiuri Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 1998 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: J Helenius; J Perkiö; L Soinne; L Østergaard; R A D Carano; O Salonen; S Savolainen; M Kaste; H J Aronen; T Tatlisumak Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 1.701
Authors: Maxime Guye; Geoffrey J M Parker; Mark Symms; Philip Boulby; Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Afraim Salek-Haddadi; Gareth J Barker; John S Duncan Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael D Fox; Randy L Buckner; Hesheng Liu; M Mallar Chakravarty; Andres M Lozano; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kurt G Schilling; Yurui Gao; Muwei Li; Tung-Lin Wu; Justin Blaber; Bennett A Landman; Adam W Anderson; Zhaohua Ding; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tung-Lin Wu; Feng Wang; Adam W Anderson; Li Min Chen; Zhaohua Ding; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Xi Wu; Zhipeng Yang; Stephen K Bailey; Jiliu Zhou; Laurie E Cutting; John C Gore; Zhaohua Ding Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 6.556