Cited by 64Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Investigating brain response to music: A comparison of different fMRI acquisition schemes

Mueller, Karsten, Mildner, Toralf, Fritz, Thomas, Lepsien, Jöran, Schwarzbauer, Christian, Schroeter, Matthias L., Möller, Harald E.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in auditory experiments is a challenge, because the scanning procedure produces considerable noise that can interfere with the auditory paradigm. The noise might either mask the auditory material presented, or interfere with stimuli designed to evoke emotions because it sounds loud and rather unpleasant. Therefore, scanning paradigms that allow interleaved auditory stimulation and image acquisition appear to be advantageous. The sparse temporal sampling (STS) technique uses a very long repetition time in order to achieve a stimulus presentation in the absence of scanner noise. Although only relatively few volumes are acquired for the resulting data sets, there have been recent studies where this method has furthered remarkable results. A new development is the interleaved silent steady state (ISSS) technique. Compared with STS, this method is capable of acquiring several volumes in the time frame between the auditory trials (while the magnetization is kept in a steady state during stimulus presentation). In order to draw conclusions about the optimum fMRI procedure with auditory stimulation, different echo-planar imaging (EPI) acquisition schemes were compared: Continuous scanning, STS, and ISSS. The total acquisition time of each sequence was adjusted to about 12.5 min. The results indicate that the ISSS approach exhibits the highest sensitivity in detecting subtle activity in sub-cortical brain regions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.029

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mueller, K., Mildner, T., Fritz, T., Lepsien, J., Schwarzbauer, C., Schroeter, M. L., & Möller, H. E.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Mueller, Karsten
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
337-343
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150331240
Cited by
64
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
music perception, echo planar imaging, scanner noise, auditory stimulation, continuous scanning
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Auditory Cortex, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognitive Dissonance, Hearing, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Music, Noise

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