Cited by 441Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM

Open access
Stephan, Klaas Enno, Weiskopf, Nikolaus, Drysdale, Peter M., Robinson, Peter A., Friston, Karl J.·2007·NeuroImage

Abstract

The classical model of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses by Buxton et al. [Buxton, R.B., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., 1998. Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model. Magn. Reson. Med. 39, 855-864] has been very important in providing a biophysically plausible framework for explaining different aspects of hemodynamic responses. It also plays an important role in the hemodynamic forward model for dynamic causal modeling (DCM) of fMRI data. A recent study by Obata et al. [Obata, T., Liu, T.T., Miller, K.L., Luh, W.M., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., Buxton, R.B., 2004. Discrepancies between BOLD and flow dynamics in primary and supplementary motor areas: application of the Balloon model to the interpretation of BOLD transients. NeuroImage 21, 144-153] linearized the BOLD signal equation and suggested a revised form for the model coefficients. In this paper, we show that the classical and revised models are special cases of a generalized model. The BOLD signal equation of this generalized model can be reduced to that of the classical Buxton model by simplifying the coefficients or can be linearized to give the Obata model. Given the importance of hemodynamic models for investigating BOLD responses and analyses of effective connectivity with DCM, the question arises which formulation is the best model for empirically measured BOLD responses. In this article, we address this question by embedding different variants of the BOLD signal equation in a well-established DCM of functional interactions among visual areas. This allows us to compare the ensuing models using Bayesian model selection. Our model comparison approach had a factorial structure, comparing eight different hemodynamic models based on (i) classical vs. revised forms for the coefficients, (ii) linear vs. non-linear output equations, and (iii) fixed vs. free parameters, epsilon, for region-specific ratios of intra- and extravascular signals. Using fMRI data from a group of twelve subjects, we demonstrate that the best model is a non-linear model with a revised form for the coefficients, in which epsilon is treated as a free parameter.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DCM for fMRI rests on a generative model that has two components: a neuronal model describing interactions in a distributed network of neuronal populations, and a component mapping neuronal activity to observed hemodynamic responses.

    “DCM for fMRI rests on a generative model that has two components.”

    From Network discovery with DCM (2011) · cites this paper as Stephan et al., 2007

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stephan, K. E., Weiskopf, N., Drysdale, P. M., Robinson, P. A., & Friston, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
387-401
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974105735
Cited by
441
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 19
FWCI
15.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (056750)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
BOLD signal, hemodynamic modeling, balloon model, dynamic causal modeling, model comparison, Bayesian model selection, effective connectivity
MeSH terms
Animals, Hemodynamics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Biological, Nervous System Physiological Phenomena, Oxygen, Oxygen Consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review