N Yahyavi-Firouz-Abadi1,2, J J Pillai2, M A Lindquist3, V D Calhoun4, S Agarwal2,4, R D Airan2, B Caffo3, S K Gujar2, H I Sair2. 1. From the Department of Radiology (N.Y.-F.-A.), Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group of Kaiser Permanente, Kensington, Maryland nyahyavi@gmail.com. 2. Division of Neuroradiology, (N.Y.-F.-A., J.J.P., S.A., R.D.A., S.K.G., H.I.S.), The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Biostatistics (M.A.L., B.C.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. The Mind Research Network (S.A., V.D.C.), Departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Resting-state fMRI readily identifies the dorsal but less consistently the ventral somatomotor network. Our aim was to assess the relative utility of resting-state fMRI in the identification of the ventral somatomotor network via comparison with task-based fMRI in patients with brain tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 26 surgically naïve patients referred for presurgical fMRI brain mapping who had undergone both satisfactory ventral motor activation tasks and resting-state fMRI. Following standard preprocessing for task-based fMRI and resting-state fMRI, general linear model analysis of the ventral motor tasks and independent component analysis of resting-state fMRI were performed with the number of components set to 20, 30, 40, and 50. Visual overlap of task-based fMRI and resting-state fMRI at different component levels was assessed and categorized as full match, partial match, or no match. Rest-versus-task-fMRI concordance was calculated with Dice coefficients across varying fMRI thresholds before and after noise removal. Multithresholded Dice coefficient volume under the surface was calculated. RESULTS: The ventral somatomotor network was identified in 81% of patients. At the subject level, better matches between resting-state fMRI and task-based fMRI were seen with an increasing order of components (53% of cases for 20 components versus 73% for 50 components). Noise-removed group-mean volume under the surface improved as component numbers increased from 20 to 50, though ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference among the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In most patients, the ventral somatomotor network can be identified with an increase in the probability of a better match at a higher component number. There is variable concordance of the ventral somatomotor network at the single-subject level between resting-state and task-based fMRI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Resting-state fMRI readily identifies the dorsal but less consistently the ventral somatomotor network. Our aim was to assess the relative utility of resting-state fMRI in the identification of the ventral somatomotor network via comparison with task-based fMRI in patients with brain tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 26 surgically naïve patients referred for presurgical fMRI brain mapping who had undergone both satisfactory ventral motor activation tasks and resting-state fMRI. Following standard preprocessing for task-based fMRI and resting-state fMRI, general linear model analysis of the ventral motor tasks and independent component analysis of resting-state fMRI were performed with the number of components set to 20, 30, 40, and 50. Visual overlap of task-based fMRI and resting-state fMRI at different component levels was assessed and categorized as full match, partial match, or no match. Rest-versus-task-fMRI concordance was calculated with Dice coefficients across varying fMRI thresholds before and after noise removal. Multithresholded Dice coefficient volume under the surface was calculated. RESULTS: The ventral somatomotor network was identified in 81% of patients. At the subject level, better matches between resting-state fMRI and task-based fMRI were seen with an increasing order of components (53% of cases for 20 components versus 73% for 50 components). Noise-removed group-mean volume under the surface improved as component numbers increased from 20 to 50, though ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference among the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In most patients, the ventral somatomotor network can be identified with an increase in the probability of a better match at a higher component number. There is variable concordance of the ventral somatomotor network at the single-subject level between resting-state and task-based fMRI.
Authors: S Lehéricy; H Duffau; P Cornu; L Capelle; B Pidoux; A Carpentier; S Auliac; S Clemenceau; J P Sichez; A Bitar; C A Valery; R Van Effenterre; T Faillot; A Srour; D Fohanno; J Philippon; D Le Bihan; C Marsault Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Peter T Fox; Karla L Miller; David C Glahn; P Mickle Fox; Clare E Mackay; Nicola Filippini; Kate E Watkins; Roberto Toro; Angela R Laird; Christian F Beckmann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dongyang Zhang; James M Johnston; Michael D Fox; Eric C Leuthardt; Robert L Grubb; Michael R Chicoine; Matthew D Smyth; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Joshua S Shimony Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Yanmei Tie; Laura Rigolo; Isaiah H Norton; Raymond Y Huang; Wentao Wu; Daniel Orringer; Srinivasan Mukundan; Alexandra J Golby Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Herie Sun; Behroze Vachha; Maria E Laino; Mehrnaz Jenabi; Jessica R Flynn; Zhigang Zhang; Andrei I Holodny; Kyung K Peck Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ji Young Lee; Yangsean Choi; Kook Jin Ahn; Yoonho Nam; Jin Hee Jang; Hyun Seok Choi; So Lyung Jung; Bum Soo Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Charles J Lynch; Jonathan D Power; Matthew A Scult; Marc Dubin; Faith M Gunning; Conor Liston Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 9.423