Regionally Specific Sensitivity Differences in fMRI and PET: Where Do They Come From?

In this paper we report three neuroimaging studies of language that investigate potential sources of inconsistency in measured hemodynamic responses: (1) between sessions for fMRI, including differences in hormonal status, (2) between sessions for PET, and (3) between scanning modalities (PET and fMRI). Differences in evoked responses between sessions of the same modality were small. In particular we did not find any effect of hormone levels when testing during the first and third weeks of the menstrual cycle (although we cannot exclude the possibility that activation in the temporoparietal regions is sensitive to hormonal status). Comparing the two modalities showed that prefrontal regions were more activated in fMRI than in PET. This may relate to task switching between blocks in fMRI that is not induced by PET paradigms or increased error variance in these regions for PET. In contrast, temporal activations were found in PET more than in fMRI. We attribute the lack of temporal activations, in fMRI, to a combination of factors, including susceptibility artifacts, anticipatory activity during the control condition, discontinuous sampling of peristimulus time, and differences in the source, acquisition, and analysis of the measured signals. It is concluded that although there is sufficient reproducibility of results for these paradigms within each modality, the regionally specific differences in sensitivity found between modalities warrant further investigation. These regionally specific differences are important for a properly qualified interpretation of activation profiles in fMRI.

[1]  J. Talairach,et al.  Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain: 3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging , 1988 .

[2]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  The neural correlates of the verbal component of working memory , 1993, Nature.

[3]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Detection of Thirty-Second Cognitive Activations in Single Subjects with Positron Emission Tomography: A New Low-Dose H215O Regional Cerebral Blood Flow Three-Dimensional Imaging Technique , 1993, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[4]  S. Bookheimer,et al.  Regional cerebral blood flow during object naming and word reading , 1995 .

[5]  L. Katz,et al.  Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language , 1995, Nature.

[6]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Functional MR imaging correlations with positron emission tomography. Initial experience using a cognitive activation paradigm on verbal working memory. , 1995, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[7]  D. Weinberger,et al.  Functional Mapping of Human Sensorimotor Cortex with 3D BOLD fMRI Correlates Highly with H215O PET rCBF , 1996, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[8]  L. Katz,et al.  Cerebral organization of component processes in reading. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[9]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Reproducibility of PET Activation Studies: Lessons from a Multi-Center European Experiment EU Concerted Action on Functional Imaging , 1996, NeuroImage.

[10]  C. J. Price,et al.  The Effect of Varying Stimulus Rate and Duration on Brain Activity during Reading , 1996, NeuroImage.

[11]  B. Horwitz,et al.  Phonological and orthographic components of word recognition. A PET-rCBF study. , 1997, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The temporal dynamics of reading: a PET study , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Segregating Semantic from Phonological Processes during Reading , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  S. Petersen,et al.  Human Brain Mapping 6:203–215(1998) � Functional MRI Studies of Word-Stem Completion: Reliability Across Laboratories and Comparison to Blood Flow Imaging With PET , 2022 .

[15]  Geoff Sanders,et al.  Verbal and music dichotic listening tasks reveal variations in functional cerebral asymmetry across the menstrual cycle that are phase and task dependent , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  R. Turner,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain: data acquisition and analysis , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Reproducibility of fMRI Results across Four Institutions Using a Spatial Working Memory Task , 1998, NeuroImage.

[18]  Comparison of PET [15O]Water Studies with 6- and 10-Minute InterScan Intervals: Single-Subject and Group Analyses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[19]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Nonlinear event‐related responses in fMRI , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  J. Xiong,et al.  Evaluation of hemispheric dominance for language using functional MRI: A comparison with positron emission tomography , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[21]  S. Rombouts,et al.  Within-subject reproducibility of visual activation patterns with functional magnetic resonance imaging using multislice echo planar imaging. , 1998, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[22]  R W Cox,et al.  Language processing is strongly left lateralized in both sexes. Evidence from functional MRI. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The Critical Relationship between the Timing of Stimulus Presentation and Data Acquisition in Blocked Designs with fMRI , 1999, NeuroImage.

[24]  Robert Turner,et al.  The Effect of Slice Order and Thickness on fMRI Activation Data Using Multislice Echo-Planar Imaging , 1999, NeuroImage.

[25]  J. Haxby,et al.  Localization of Cardiac-Induced Signal Change in fMRI , 1999, NeuroImage.

[26]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  A Direct Comparison between Whole-Brain PET and BOLD fMRI Measurements of Single-Subject Activation Response , 1999, NeuroImage.

[27]  Peter Herscovitch,et al.  Comparison of PET [15O]Water Studies with 6-Minute and 10-Minute InterScan Intervals: Single-Subject and Group Analyses , 1999 .

[28]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Susceptibility-Induced Loss of Signal: Comparing PET and fMRI on a Semantic Task , 2000, NeuroImage.

[29]  R. Turner,et al.  Assessing Study-Specific Regional Variations in fMRI Signal , 2000, NeuroImage.