Methodological challenges and solutions in auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies involve substantial acoustic noise. This review covers the difficulties posed by such noise for auditory neuroscience, as well as a number of possible solutions that have emerged. Acoustic noise can affect the processing of auditory stimuli by making them inaudible or unintelligible, and can result in reduced sensitivity to auditory activation in auditory cortex. Equally importantly, acoustic noise may also lead to increased listening effort, meaning that even when auditory stimuli are perceived, neural processing may differ from when the same stimuli are presented in quiet. These and other challenges have motivated a number of approaches for collecting auditory fMRI data. Although using a continuous echoplanar imaging (EPI) sequence provides high quality imaging data, these data may also be contaminated by background acoustic noise. Traditional sparse imaging has the advantage of avoiding acoustic noise during stimulus presentation, but at a cost of reduced temporal resolution. Recently, three classes of techniques have been developed to circumvent these limitations. The first is Interleaved Silent Steady State (ISSS) imaging, a variation of sparse imaging that involves collecting multiple volumes following a silent period while maintaining steady-state longitudinal magnetization. The second involves active noise control to limit the impact of acoustic scanner noise. Finally, novel MRI sequences that reduce the amount of acoustic noise produced during fMRI make the use of continuous scanning a more practical option. Together these advances provide unprecedented opportunities for researchers to collect high-quality data of hemodynamic responses to auditory stimuli using fMRI.

[1]  M. Quirk,et al.  Anxiety in patients undergoing MR imaging. , 1989, Radiology.

[2]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Neural Oscillations Carry Speech Rhythm through to Comprehension , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[3]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The variability of human BOLD hemodynamic responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[4]  Chad S. Rogers,et al.  Expectation and Entropy in Spoken Word Recognition: Effects of Age and Hearing Acuity , 2013, Experimental aging research.

[5]  Christian Schwarzbauer,et al.  Evaluating an acoustically quiet EPI sequence for use in fMRI studies of speech and auditory processing , 2010, NeuroImage.

[6]  Patti Adank,et al.  The neural bases of difficult speech comprehension and speech production: Two Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses , 2012, Brain and Language.

[7]  Peter E. Keller,et al.  The Perception of Musical Spontaneity in Improvised and Imitated Jazz Performances , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[8]  T. Ernst,et al.  fMRI-acoustic noise alters brain activation during working memory tasks , 2005, NeuroImage.

[9]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Dissociating frontotemporal contributions to semantic ambiguity resolution in spoken sentences. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Acoustic masking disrupts time-dependent mechanisms of memory encoding in word-list recall , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[11]  L. Jäncke,et al.  Influence of acoustic masking noise in fMRI of the auditory cortex during phonetic discrimination , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  R. Mallozzi,et al.  Making MRI quieter. , 2002, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[13]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Response latencies in auditory sentence comprehension: effects of linguistic versus perceptual challenge. , 2010, Psychology and aging.

[14]  Thomas Fritz,et al.  Investigating brain response to music: A comparison of different fMRI acquisition schemes , 2011, NeuroImage.

[15]  B. Hommel,et al.  The Effect of Fmri (noise) on Cognitive Control , 2022 .

[16]  M. Harms,et al.  Sound repetition rate in the human auditory pathway: representations in the waveshape and amplitude of fMRI activation. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing for Speech in Human Auditory Cortex and Beyond , 2010, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[18]  Bruce A Schneider,et al.  Comparing the effects of aging and background noise on short-term memory performance. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[19]  D. Koshland Frontiers in neuroscience. , 1988, Science.

[20]  W. Edmister,et al.  Nonlinearity of FMRI responses in human auditory cortex , 2004, Human brain mapping.

[21]  J. S. Kim,et al.  A new silent magnetic resonance imaging using a rotating DC gradient , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  Klaus Scheffler,et al.  Effect of fMRI acoustic noise on non-auditory working memory task: comparison between continuous and pulsed sound emitting EPI , 2005, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[23]  R. Weisskoff,et al.  Quantitative assessment of auditory cortex responses induced by imager acoustic noise , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[24]  H. Vos,et al.  Annoyance from environmental noise across the lifespan. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hierarchical Processing in Spoken Language Comprehension , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  Adam R. Walczak,et al.  At the heart of the ventral attention system: The right anterior insula , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[27]  Klaus Scheffler,et al.  Background MR gradient noise and non-auditory BOLD activations: A data-driven perspective , 2009, Brain Research.

[28]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Optimized Design and Analysis of Sparse-Sampling fMRI Experiments , 2013, Front. Neurosci..

[29]  T. Lunner,et al.  The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[30]  H. Critchley,et al.  fMRI Scanner Noise Interaction with Affective Neural Processes , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  Joseph S. Gati,et al.  Characterization of the blood-oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) response in cat auditory cortex using high-field fMRI , 2013, NeuroImage.

[32]  P. Rabbitt,et al.  Channel-Capacity, Intelligibility and Immediate Memory , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  Joseph S. Gati,et al.  There's more than one way to scan a cat: Imaging cat auditory cortex with high-field fMRI using continuous or sparse sampling , 2014, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[34]  H. E. Brown,et al.  Utilizing hemodynamic delay and dispersion to detect fMRI signal change without auditory interference: The behavior interleaved gradients technique , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[35]  D. Poeppel,et al.  Sensitivity to temporal modulation rate and spectral bandwidth in the human auditory system: fMRI evidence. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  J. Obleser,et al.  Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  R I Kitney,et al.  Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[38]  R. Bowtell,et al.  The effect of scanner sound in visual, motor, and auditory functional MRI , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[39]  T. Loenneker,et al.  Silent BOLD imaging , 2001, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[40]  Adriaan Moelker,et al.  Relationship between magnetic field strength and magnetic-resonance-related acoustic noise levels , 2003, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[41]  R. Bowtell,et al.  “sparse” temporal sampling in auditory fMRI , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[42]  A. Zekveld,et al.  New measures of masked text recognition in relation to speech-in-noise perception and their associations with age and cognitive abilities. , 2012, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[43]  J. R. Baker,et al.  Imaging subcortical auditory activity in humans , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[44]  Aimée M. Surprenant,et al.  The Effect of Noise on Memory for Spoken Syllables , 1999 .

[45]  Bharath Chandrasekaran,et al.  Effects of Speech Clarity on Recognition Memory for Spoken Sentences , 2012, PloS one.

[46]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  The Brain Dynamics of Rapid Perceptual Adaptation to Adverse Listening Conditions , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[47]  A R Palmer,et al.  Time‐course of the auditory BOLD response to scanner noise , 2000, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[48]  J. Meléndez,et al.  Anxiety-related reactions associated with magnetic resonance imaging examinations. , 1993, JAMA.

[49]  Nikos K Logothetis,et al.  Optimizing the imaging of the monkey auditory cortex: sparse vs. continuous fMRI. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[50]  G. Glover,et al.  Assessing the influence of scanner background noise on auditory processing. II. An fMRI study comparing auditory processing in the absence and presence of recorded scanner noise using a sparse design , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[51]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Event-related fMRI of the auditory cortex. , 1998, NeuroImage.

[52]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss in Older Adulthood , 2005 .

[53]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Loss and Perceptual Effort: Downstream Effects on Older Adults’ Memory for Speech , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[54]  S. Scott,et al.  Functional Integration across Brain Regions Improves Speech Perception under Adverse Listening Conditions , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[55]  J. Melcher,et al.  Isolating the auditory system from acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging: examination of noise conduction through the ear canal, head, and body. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  J. Gore,et al.  Measurements of the Temporal fMRI Response of the Human Auditory Cortex to Trains of Tones , 1998, NeuroImage.

[57]  E. Diesch,et al.  Silent echo-planar imaging for auditory FMRI , 2008, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[58]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[59]  Jochen Kaiser,et al.  Audiovisual Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Adaptation Reveals Multisensory Integration Effects in Object-Related Sensory Cortices , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[60]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[61]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Effortful Listening: The Processing of Degraded Speech Depends Critically on Attention , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[62]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Predictive Top-Down Integration of Prior Knowledge during Speech Perception , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[63]  Deborah A. Hall,et al.  Acoustic, psychophysical, and neuroimaging measurements of the effectiveness of active cancellation during auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[64]  D. Lim,et al.  Effects of the acoustic noise of the gradient systems on fMRI: A study on auditory, motor, and visual cortices , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[65]  B. Schneider,et al.  Elucidating the effects of ageing on remembering perceptually distorted word pairs , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[66]  Deborah A. Hall,et al.  How challenges in auditory fMRI led to general advancements for the field , 2012, NeuroImage.

[67]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Automated post‐hoc noise cancellation tool for audio recordings acquired in an MRI scanner , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[68]  A R Palmer,et al.  Active control of the volume acquisition noise in functional magnetic resonance imaging: method and psychoacoustical evaluation. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[69]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  Interleaved silent steady state (ISSS) imaging: A new sparse imaging method applied to auditory fMRI , 2006, NeuroImage.

[70]  P. Bandettini,et al.  Functional MRI of brain activation induced by scanner acoustic noise , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[71]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Why Clowns Taste Funny: The Relationship between Humor and Semantic Ambiguity , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[72]  K Tschopp,et al.  Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is a Non-invasive Method for the Detection of Focal Brain Activity at High Spatial Resolution. Acoustic Stimulation Leads to a Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent , 2022 .

[73]  T. Loenneker,et al.  “Silent” MRI with soft gradient pulses , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[74]  Paul Miller,et al.  Distinct Effects of Perceptual Quality on Auditory Word Recognition, Memory Formation and Recall in a Neural Model of Sequential Memory , 2010, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[75]  Peter Mansfield,et al.  Principles of active acoustic control in gradient coil design , 2007, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[76]  S. Petersen,et al.  A dual-networks architecture of top-down control , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[77]  Ferath Kherif,et al.  Does Semantic Context Benefit Speech Understanding through “Top–Down” Processes? Evidence from Time-resolved Sparse fMRI , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[78]  Yuvi Kahana,et al.  Developments in active noise control sound systems for magnetic resonance imaging , 2007 .

[79]  Sophie K. Scott,et al.  Auditory neuroimaging with fMRI and PET , 2014, Hearing Research.

[80]  Dave R M Langers,et al.  Interactions between hemodynamic responses to scanner acoustic noise and auditory stimuli in functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[81]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Impact of fMRI Acoustic Noise on the Functional Anatomy of Visual Mental Imagery , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[82]  P. van Dijk,et al.  Mapping the Tonotopic Organization in Human Auditory Cortex with Minimally Salient Acoustic Stimulation , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[83]  Ewald Moser,et al.  EEG reveals the effect of fMRI scanner noise on noise-sensitive subjects , 2006, NeuroImage.

[84]  Jochen Kaiser,et al.  Probing category selectivity for environmental sounds in the human auditory brain , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[85]  N. Kiang,et al.  Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[86]  R. Weisskoff,et al.  Improved auditory cortex imaging using clustered volume acquisitions , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[87]  Sophie K. Scott,et al.  The neural processing of masked speech , 2013, Hearing Research.

[88]  W. CLEMENT LEY,et al.  Brain Dynamics , 1880, Nature.

[89]  Stefanie E. Kuchinsky,et al.  The Cingulo-Opercular Network Provides Word-Recognition Benefit , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[90]  Jean-Claude Junqua,et al.  The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex , 1996, Speech Commun..

[91]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. , 2014, Psychophysiology.

[92]  Adriaan Moelker,et al.  Acoustic noise concerns in functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[93]  Klaus Scheffler,et al.  Enhancing BOLD response in the auditory system by neurophysiologically tuned fMRI sequence , 2006, NeuroImage.

[94]  Steve C R Williams,et al.  Acoustic noise and functional magnetic resonance imaging: Current strategies and future prospects , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[95]  Z. Cho,et al.  Dual routes for verbal repetition: Articulation-based and acoustic–phonetic codes for pseudoword and word repetition, respectively , 2012, Brain and Language.

[96]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception , 2007, Hearing Research.

[97]  A R Palmer,et al.  Sound‐Level Measurements and Calculations of Safe Noise Dosage During EPI at 3 T , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[98]  Stefanie E. Kuchinsky,et al.  Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. , 2013, Psychophysiology.

[99]  A. Katsunuma,et al.  Quiet MRI with novel acoustic noise reduction , 2001, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[100]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[101]  Jing-Huei Lee,et al.  In situ active control of noise in a 4 T MRI scanner , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.