Silvia Rădulescu

Trace:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
aslin_2015 [2016/05/28 14:48] silviaaslin_2015 [2016/05/28 15:41] (current) silvia
Line 15: Line 15:
 \\ \\
 \\ \\
 +When a specific pool of neurons is active, the hemodynamic response is believed to be localized 
 +within 1–3mmof this neural activity (e.g., Shmuel et al. 2007, using 7T in human occipital cortex, 
 +V1) and likely represents the local field potentials rather than spiking activity of clusters of neurons 
 +(Goense&Logothetis 2008).However, the hemodynamic response unfolds slowly compared with 
 +the rapid change in neural activity. Even after a brief burst of stimulus-evoked neural activity 
 +(<1 s), the adult hemodynamic response peaks approximately 6 s later and the concentrations of 
 +Oxy-Hb and deOxy-Hb do not return to baseline until more than 10 s after the stimulus was 
 +initially presented (Malonek & Grinvald 1996) (see Figure 1). These spatial-temporal aspects of 
 +the hemodynamic response greatly constrain the designs and interpretations that can be drawn 
 +from neuroimaging methods that rely on neurovascular coupling. 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +FMRI employs the presentation of radio wave pulses in a staticmagnetic field to record what is called the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) 
 +response that varies with fluctuations in local concentrations of deOxy-Hb. By contrast, fNIRS 
 +simultaneously records changes in bothOxy-Hb and deOxy-Hb by employing two wavelengths of 
 +near-infrared light (e.g., 690 nm and 830 nm), which span the crossover point in their respective 
 +absorbance spectra. 
 +\\ 
 +While the spatial resolution of fMRI varieswith the strength of the staticmagnetic field (B0; e.g., 
 +1.5T, 3T, or 7T) and the specific scanning parameters, the typical fMRI voxel size of 3mm3 is well 
 +matched to the resolution of the hemodynamic response itself. In contrast, current fNIRS systems 
 +have a much coarser spatial resolution. As shown in Figure 2, near-infrared light is delivered to 
 +the surface of the scalp via optical fibers (emitters). Surrounding each emitter are one or more 
 +optical fibers (detectors) that collect a small fraction of the photons that return to the surface of 
 +the scalp after passing through various layers of neural tissue between the emitter and the detector. 
 +Each pair of optical fibers that link an emitter and a detector is referred to as a fNIRS channel 
 +and samples the underlying tissue from which the hemodynamic response is being recorded. 
 +Photons leaving the emitter and reaching the detector are primarily absorbed in the surface layers 
 +above the cortex, including the scalp, skull, cerebral-spinal fluid, and surface vasculature (see 
 +Figure 2). The remaining photons travel along a banana-shaped trajectory that dips into the 
 +underlying cortex. The distance between the emitter and detector determines the lowest point of 
 +the banana-shaped trajectory; the greater the separation between the two, the deeper the trajectory 
 +through the cortex. However, greater separation also leads to greater attenuation of the signal. 
 +Current systems typically employ emitter-detector separations of 2–3 cm, which optimize cortical 
 +sampling and signal strength.However, photons must necessarily enter and exit the brain through the scalp and therefore are substantially modulated by absorption in the superficial layers of tissue 
 +between the surface of the cortex and the scalp. This introduces a substantial source of noise into 
 +what is a rather weak signal. Thus, signal averaging, as in the ERP, must be used to factor out 
 +noncortical noise (under the assumption that background systemic vascular effects are uncorrelated 
 +with the presentation of a stimulus). 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +One final consideration regarding spatial resolution of fNIRS is skull thickness. The thickness 
 +of the skull is directly related to the amount of cortex that is being recorded from in a given fNIRS 
 +channel. This is important not only because the skull is quite thin in neonates (6mmon average) and 
 +becomes thicker with age (10 mm by age 7) but also because skull thickness varies across regions 
 +of the head within a given age (Beauchamp et al. 2011), creating a confound when examining 
 +absolute changes in cortical activation across ages or across brain regions (e.g., hemispheres). This 
 +underlying anatomy should be taken into consideration for studies that compare neural activity 
 +to a given stimulus across fNIRS channels without normalizing these activations to a second 
 +stimulus. In the future, anatomical data that compensate for this differential path length from 
 +fNIRS could help to prevent the false attribution of hemispheric and regional differences (unless 
 +only relative changes in activation comprise the dependent measure). In addition to variability in 
 +skull thickness, it is important to determine the distance from the tips of the optical fibers on the 
 +scalp to the depth of the cortical area that is being targeted in a given recording session. 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +Finally, the temporal resolution of fMRI is typically 0.5 Hz (i.e., a whole-brain sample every 
 +2 s). This slow sample rate has proven to be sufficient for most applications because the underlying 
 +hemodynamic response is an order of magnitude slower. In contrast, fNIRS is typically recorded 
 +at 10 Hz and higher sampling rates are possible because detection of the optical response is not 
 +limited by the interaction between slice selection and gradient encoding in fMRI. Thus, fNIRS 
 +has much better temporal resolution than fMRI and in principle could provide a more accurate 
 +measure of the shape and timing of the hemodynamic response. In practice, however, that potential 
 +has not yet been realized, in part because of noise from noncortical, surface-vascular responses 
 +(which does not affect fMRI) and because infants cannot provide a sufficient number of stimulus blocks (or events) to average out the noise. Moreover, phased-array head coils have improved the 
 +sampling rates of fMRI (Keil et al. 2013) so that the intrinsic superiority of fNIRS in the temporal 
 +domain is not likely to be a significant advantage in the future. 
 +\\ 
 +\\