Jump to content

Talk:Functional magnetic resonance imaging

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PhineasG (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 28 May 2008 (→‎Is fMRI worthwhile). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

History

I just like to comment on the fact that the history bit on fMRI is a bit misleading here. While Ogawa found the BOLD effect in 1990 by effectively manipulating the oxygen saturation of the blood either directly or by insulin injections, he merely suggested that this technique could complement PET functional imaging in some way. Of course everyone "knew" this was a possible route to fMRI, Ogawa's group was held back by the fact that they believed the effect could only be observed at high fields > 4T, and their 4T human magnet did not come online till years later. The first fMRI study ever was done by John Belliveau at MGH and published in Science 1991, although it used a paramagnetic contrast agent rather than the BOLD effect. The first BOLD studies came out in 1992, one by Ogawa (PNAS), one by Ken Kwong (PNAS) (there is a wikipedia entry for him already), and one by Peter Bandettini (MRM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.226.41 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

boustrophedonic?

Can someone check the meaning of this word? Is this actually used in the fMRI literature? Even if it is, it should be spelled out.

  • I don't think it is used. I vote to replace this word.

Boustrophedon literally means "as an ox plows" and refers to the direction of scanning. If the scan is left to right on the first line, then right to left on the second line, etc on alternating lines, then it is boustrophedonic. If the scan is always left to right (like the raster of a TV screen) with silent retrace, then it is not boustrophedonic. Greensburger 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the word used in reference to MRI (okay, I've never heard the word used at all). I vote for its replacement. Better than that, why not remove the whole paragraph? Maybe we need a separate page describing EPI, which would go into k-space details. There is nothing about fMRI that inherently requires an alternating trajectory, and it seems odd to mention it without first explaining k-space. Reading the section again, the whole section doesn't make much sense. I'm not a functional person, but I guess the section should say something like B0 correction->motion correction->spatial/temporal filtering->correlation to stimuli. Any comments? Arthurtech 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of the journal 'Magnetic Resonance in Medicine' showed no hits for boustrophedon. It doesn't belong here. Arthurtech 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. PhineasG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this page?

Who wrote this page? -Anon

Lots of people, it's a community effort as are all wikipedia pages. Go to the bottom of the article page and you will see a link called "page history", click on it and you will see a list of edits to the page along with who made those edits. theresa knott 20:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle of the brain movie is suspicious

Can anyone check that? It should be an MRI video, rather than an fMRI video, even though fMRI information could be superimposed on those frames to get better resolution, which has always been done.

I can't speak authoritatively for all cases, but typically fMRI data is of significantly lower spatial resolution than structural scans. Superimposing functionals is usually done for other purposes than to get better structure, e.g. to allow analysis across temporal/stimulus axes. --Improv 18:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the purpose of superimposing functionals over structurals to see where in the brain the activation is? I guess it's the structural image that must be stretched to match the reference image. --AlmostC 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is fMRI worthwhile

This is an important section and should be included, people need to be made aware of the fundamental arguments which underlie functional imaging. (and no, those references weren't mine).

  • I agree; it is important to mention the criticisms against fMRI raised by other scientists, and even if the section needs some work it shouldn't be deleted. Gccwang 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly debates over the proper design, analysis, and interpretation of fMRI studies. However, I don't believe there is any serious doubt in the neuroscientific community that the technique itself is tremendously useful. As is stated in the current version of this section, fMRI is only as useful as the experiment designed around it, as with any other technique. Thus I've changed the title of this section to better reflect the general (scientific) consensus. PhineasG (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are "hemodynamic signals"?

It would be nice to have a potted description of the "hemodynamic signals" that appear in the first paragraph.

Sadly, the entry elsewhere on "hemodynamics" isn't much help, which may explain why it isn't linked from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemodynamics.

Michael Kenward

"CBF"

Near the end of the third paragraph, what is "CBF"? Is it "cerebral blood flow"?

Lance ==)------------


Yes.

New research

Recently, a report was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences documenting a "brain-training" session with both healthy and chronic-pain volunteers who studied their own brain activity while being "instructed" in useful ways to minimize pain perception and were able to significantly reduce pain after a mere 39 minutes of practice in the machine. This was contrasted with control and comparison groups who either were not in the machine, were given others' brain data, were instructed in various biofeedback techniques or were given data about a different section of the brain than that thought to control pain perception. Those who were being presented with data from their own rostral anterior singulate cortex in real-time during their training session reported reductions in experienced pain of more than half, while the other groups did not.

To me, this seems worthy of inclusion in the fMRI article, perhaps alongside a section about possible future uses, or at least noteworthy current experiments.

Also, is this phrase in need of a change or addendum? "To this date, fMRI has neither proven therapeutic value nor known damage to the human body."

67.171.194.78 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's wait for it to settle down as being an established scientific fact. This is too new to be considered reliable, and there hasn't been time for followup studies and criticisms to be published yet. If in 6 months it's considered well-founded, then it may be worthwhile to include. --Improv 05:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author (Christopher deCharms) actually started a company (omneuron.com) to implement this neurofeedback technique, which to me is promising. A similar work is by Rainer Goebel (inventor of BrainVoyager), where ping-pong balls in a game are controlled by such biofeedbacks read from fMRI of visual cortex. In my view, these works represent a growing branch and are worth included into the current research section. By all means, if such serious work is "distant from accepted science" (User:Improv), the "fMRI lie detector" is at a much longer distance from any serious science, and shall be deleted.--Schlieren 04:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article fails to cite and references. --Allen3 talk 11:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to PET

Could a comparison to PET (in terms of resolution, cost, safety, usage, etc.) be included somewhere on the page? I'm no expert on either, but it seems like this would be a natural thing to include given that both tecnologies try to measure CBF. 128.42.167.200 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. MEG and EEG would be other good comparison targets. There's a figure in circulation (most textbooks) comparing spatial and temporal resolution of functional imaging techniques. I'll try to find/post it without treading on copyrights. --Josh Powell 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacological challenge functional MRI

I don't see any entries for p/ph-MRI. Am I looking in the wrong place, or has nobody written an article yet? Jddriessen 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and just created my first article, efMRI. In retrospect it should be part of this article. How do I do that?


Abe (or Abraham) 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

  • These articles should really be merged under the heading BOLD fMRI which is both more accurate and comprehensive. Other existing and emerging MRI techniques are also referred to as "functional MRI" but with respect to gastric function, muscular function or even brain function revealed by mechanisms other than the BOLD effect e.g. arterial spin labeling (ASL).
  • Real-time fMRI is only one paragraph, excluding reference. It should be merged into the main article. BOLD should also be merged in. If they grow within the article, then perhaps they can be summarized within the article and described in detail in their own articles. -kslays 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding merging with Real-time fMRI: I think Real-time fMRI should be its own article. It is a distinct area of the field, and significant advances are underway

Newsweek article on fMRI mind reading

Check this out. I am very skeptical, but it's in the press, so people will look at the wiki article for further info. L'omo del batocio (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC). The PloS ONE article is available here. L'omo del batocio (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 citations

Only 2 references? --1000Faces (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Beyond Blobology

Perhaps it should be mentioned that there is some kind of critizism about "Blobology" and the scarce interpretation of the pictures generated (as far as I understand it), see for instance: http://www-bmu.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/sitewide/publications/presentations/bullmore04mul.pdf - this Term slowly dissipates into German for instance, as "Blobologie" Plehn (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging&oldid=215398613"