Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 958

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The neural basis of the blood–oxygen–level–dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging signal

Open access
Logothetis, Nikos K.·2002·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has rapidly become an important tool in clinical medicine and biological research. Its functional variant (functional magnetic resonance imaging; fMRI) is currently the most widely used method for brain mapping and studying the neural basis of human cognition. While the method is widespread, there is insufficient knowledge of the physiological basis of the fMRI signal to interpret the data confidently with respect to neural activity. This paper reviews the basic principles of MRI and fMRI, and subsequently discusses in some detail the relationship between the blood–oxygen–level–dependent (BOLD) fMRI signal and the neural activity elicited during sensory stimulation. To examine this relationship, we conducted the first simultaneous intracortical recordings of neural signals and BOLD responses. Depending on the temporal characteristics of the stimulus, a moderate to strong correlation was found between the neural activity measured with microelectrodes and the BOLD signal averaged over a small area around the microelectrode tips. However, the BOLD signal had significantly higher variability than the neural activity, indicating that human fMRI combined with traditional statistical methods underestimates the reliability of the neuronal activity. To understand the relative contribution of several types of neuronal signals to the haemodynamic response, we compared local field potentials (LFPs), single– and multi–unit activity (MUA) with high spatio–temporal fMRI responses recorded simultaneously in monkey visual cortex. At recording sites characterized by transient responses, only the LFP signal was significantly correlated with the haemodynamic response. Furthermore, the LFPs had the largest magnitude signal and linear systems analysis showed that the LFPs were better than the MUAs at predicting the fMRI responses. These findings, together with an analysis of the neural signals, indicate that the BOLD signal primarily measures the input and processing of neuronal information within a region and not the output signal transmitted to other brain regions.

Overview

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 · 10.1098/rstb.2002.1114

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 958

Metadata

Authors
Logothetis, N. K.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2002-08-29
Volume
357
Issue
1424
Pages
1003-1037
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2168801837
Cited by
958
References
17
FWCI
22.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The neural basis of the blood–oxygen–level–dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging signal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2002.1114
The paper
Logothetis, N. K. (2002). The neural basis of the blood–oxygen–level–dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging signal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1114

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.