Cited by 37Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The single-epoch fMRI design: validation of a simplified paradigm for the collection of subjective ratings

Koyama, Tetsuo, McHaffie, John G, Laurienti, Paul J, Coghill, Robert C·2003·NeuroImage

Abstract

One of the goals of human functional imaging studies is to interpret brain activation in the context of an individual's subjective experience. However, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies usually employ a block design that consists of multiple epochs of stimulation; this strategy does not readily allow subjective responses to be assessed on a stimulus-by-stimulus basis. To address this issue, we developed a "single-epoch" design, consisting of a single stimulation period presented between two baseline periods. This allows subjective ratings to be acquired after each stimulus, while minimizing rating-induced confounds. To evaluate its sensitivity and utility, we obtained fMRI data using single-epoch and block designs (five stimuli between six baselines) and assessed regional brain activations evoked by both visual (a checkerboard pattern) and painful (noxious heat to right calf) stimuli. For both types of stimulation, data collected using the single-epoch design displayed activation patterns that were generally similar to those detected with the block design. Furthermore, only one single-epoch acquisition series was sufficient to detect bilateral activation in the visual cortex during visual stimulation and activation in the primary somatosensory cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and other regions during painful stimulation. In addition, analyses of a series of single-epoch data from a single individual revealed a stimulus-by-stimulus decrease in the activation in the anterior cingulate cortex that paralleled the decrease in the subject's psychophysical responses. These findings confirm that the single-epoch design is sensitive to regional signal changes and serves as a viable alternative to the block design when the collection of subjective responses is of critical importance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00119-8

Cites

37 of 37 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
Koyama, T., McHaffie, J. G., Laurienti, P. J., & Coghill, R. C.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Coghill, Robert C
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
976-987
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064578704
Cited by
37
References
37
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (RO1 NS39426)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
subjective ratings, visual cortex activation, primary somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, psychophysical response
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Collection, Female, Hot Temperature, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex

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