Federico De Martino1,2, Michelle Moerel2, Kamil Ugurbil2, Elia Formisano1, Essa Yacoub2. 1. Department of Cognitive Neurosciences, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To improve acquisition in fMRI studies of audition by using multiband (MB) gradient-echo echo planar imaging (GE-EPI). METHODS: Data were acquired at 3T (Siemens Skyra) with a 32-channel head coil. Functional responses were obtained by presenting stimuli [tones and natural sounds (voices, speech, music, tools, animal cries)] in silent gaps between image acquisitions. Two-fold slice acceleration (MB2) was compared with a standard GE-EPI (MB1). Coverage and sampling rate (TR = 3 s) were kept constant across acquisition schemes. The longer gap in MB2 scans was used to present: (i) sounds of the same length as in conventional GE-EPI (type 1; 800 ms stimuli); (ii) sounds of double the length (type 2; 1600 ms stimuli). RESULTS:Functional responses to all sounds (i.e., main effect) were stronger when acquired with slice acceleration (i.e., shorter acquisition time). The difference between voice and nonvoice responses was greater in MB2 type 1 acquisitions (i.e., same length sounds as GE-EPI but presented in a longer silent gap) than in standard GE-EPI acquisitions (interaction effect). CONCLUSION: Reducing the length of the scanner noise results in stronger functional responses. Longer "silent" periods (i.e., keeping the sound length the same as in standard acquisitions) result in stronger response to voice compared with nonvoice stimuli.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To improve acquisition in fMRI studies of audition by using multiband (MB) gradient-echo echo planar imaging (GE-EPI). METHODS: Data were acquired at 3T (Siemens Skyra) with a 32-channel head coil. Functional responses were obtained by presenting stimuli [tones and natural sounds (voices, speech, music, tools, animal cries)] in silent gaps between image acquisitions. Two-fold slice acceleration (MB2) was compared with a standard GE-EPI (MB1). Coverage and sampling rate (TR = 3 s) were kept constant across acquisition schemes. The longer gap in MB2 scans was used to present: (i) sounds of the same length as in conventional GE-EPI (type 1; 800 ms stimuli); (ii) sounds of double the length (type 2; 1600 ms stimuli). RESULTS: Functional responses to all sounds (i.e., main effect) were stronger when acquired with slice acceleration (i.e., shorter acquisition time). The difference between voice and nonvoice responses was greater in MB2 type 1 acquisitions (i.e., same length sounds as GE-EPI but presented in a longer silent gap) than in standard GE-EPI acquisitions (interaction effect). CONCLUSION: Reducing the length of the scanner noise results in stronger functional responses. Longer "silent" periods (i.e., keeping the sound length the same as in standard acquisitions) result in stronger response to voice compared with nonvoice stimuli.
Authors: Steen Moeller; Essa Yacoub; Cheryl A Olman; Edward Auerbach; John Strupp; Noam Harel; Kâmil Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kawin Setsompop; Borjan A Gagoski; Jonathan R Polimeni; Thomas Witzel; Van J Wedeen; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jonathan E Peelle; Rowena J Eason; Sebastian Schmitter; Christian Schwarzbauer; Matthew H Davis Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Junqian Xu; Steen Moeller; Edward J Auerbach; John Strupp; Stephen M Smith; David A Feinberg; Essa Yacoub; Kâmil Uğurbil Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-07-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: David A Feinberg; Steen Moeller; Stephen M Smith; Edward Auerbach; Sudhir Ramanna; Matthias Gunther; Matt F Glasser; Karla L Miller; Kamil Ugurbil; Essa Yacoub Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ludovica Griffanti; Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi; Christian F Beckmann; Edward J Auerbach; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Claire E Sexton; Enikő Zsoldos; Klaus P Ebmeier; Nicola Filippini; Clare E Mackay; Steen Moeller; Junqian Xu; Essa Yacoub; Giuseppe Baselli; Kamil Ugurbil; Karla L Miller; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ann S Choe; Mary Beth Nebel; Anita D Barber; Jessica R Cohen; Yuting Xu; James J Pekar; Brian Caffo; Martin A Lindquist Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Logan T Dowdle; Geoffrey Ghose; Clark C C Chen; Kamil Ugurbil; Essa Yacoub; Luca Vizioli Journal: Prog Neurobiol Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 11.685
Authors: Lizette Heine; Mohamed A Bahri; Carlo Cavaliere; Andrea Soddu; Steven Laureys; Maurice Ptito; Ron Kupers Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.856
Authors: Valentin G Kemper; Federico De Martino; Thomas C Emmerling; Essa Yacoub; Rainer Goebel Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 6.556