↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Effects of Spatial Pattern Scale of Brain Activity on the Sensitivity of DOT, fMRI, EEG and MEG

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Effects of Spatial Pattern Scale of Brain Activity on the Sensitivity of DOT, fMRI, EEG and MEG
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0083299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine L. Perdue, Solomon Gilbert Diamond

Abstract

The objective of this work is to quantify how patterns of cortical activity at different spatial scales are measured by noninvasive functional neuroimaging sensors. We simulated cortical activation patterns at nine different spatial scales in a realistic head model and propagated this activity to magnetoencephalography (MEG), electroencephalography (EEG), diffuse optical tomography (DOT), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) sensors in arrangements that are typically used in functional neuroimaging studies. We estimated contrast transfer functions (CTF), correlation distances in sensor space, and the minimum resolvable spatial scale of cortical activity for each modality. We found that CTF decreases as the spatial extent of cortical activity decreases, and that correlations between nearby sensors depend on the spatial extent of cortical activity. For cortical activity on the intermediate spatial scale of 6.7 cm(2), the correlation distances (r>0.5) were 1.0 cm for fMRI, 2.0 cm for DOT, 12.8 for EEG, 9.5 cm for MEG magnetometers and 9.7 cm for MEG gradiometers. The resolvable spatial pattern scale was found to be 1.43 cm(2) for MEG magnetometers, 0.88 cm(2) for MEG gradiometers, 376 cm(2) for EEG, 0.75 cm(2) for DOT, and 0.072 cm(2) for fMRI. These findings show that sensitivity to cortical activity varies substantially as a function of spatial scale within and between the different imaging modalities. This information should be taken into account when interpreting neuroimaging data and when choosing the number of nodes for network analyses in sensor space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 11%
France 1 3%
Unknown 30 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 31%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Psychology 4 11%
Computer Science 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%