Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Effects of Hemodynamic Response Function Selection on Rat fMRI Statistical Analyses.
Peng, Shin-Lei; Chen, Chun-Ming; Huang, Chen-You; Shih, Cheng-Ting; Huang, Chiun-Wei; Chiu, Shao-Chieh; Shen, Wu-Chung.
Afiliación
  • Peng SL; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • Chen CM; Department of Radiology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • Huang CY; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • Shih CT; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • Huang CW; Center for Advanced Molecular Imaging and Translation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
  • Chiu SC; Center for Advanced Molecular Imaging and Translation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
  • Shen WC; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Front Neurosci ; 13: 400, 2019.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31114471
The selection of the appropriate hemodynamic response function (HRF) for signal modeling in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is important. Although the use of the boxcar-shaped hemodynamic response function (BHRF) and canonical hemodynamic response (CHRF) has gained increasing popularity in rodent fMRI studies, whether the selected HRF affects the results of rodent fMRI has not been fully elucidated. Here we investigated the signal change and t-statistic sensitivities of BHRF, CHRF, and impulse response function (IRF). The effect of HRF selection on different tasks was analyzed by using data collected from two groups of rats receiving either 3 mA whisker pad or 3 mA forepaw electrical stimulations (n = 10 for each group). Under whisker pad stimulation with large blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal change (4.31 ± 0.42%), BHRF significantly underestimated signal changes (P < 0.001) and t-statistics (P < 0.001) compared with CHRF or IRF. CHRF and IRF did not provide significantly different t-statistics (P > 0.05). Under forepaw stimulation with small BOLD signal change (1.71 ± 0.34%), different HRFs provided insignificantly different t-statistics (P > 0.05). Therefore, the selected HRF can influence data analysis in rodent fMRI experiments with large BOLD responses but not in those with small BOLD responses.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Neurosci Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Taiwán Pais de publicación: Suiza
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Front Neurosci Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Taiwán Pais de publicación: Suiza