2001
DOI: 10.1002/1097-0193(200102)12:2<79::aid-hbm1005>3.0.co;2-i
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of fMRI activation using Cortical Surface Mapping

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
137
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(142 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
5
137
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies following CSM approaches (Andrade et al, 2001;Chung et al, 2005;Hagler et al, 2006;Qiu et al, 2006), which anatomically constrain the activation mapping, suffer from a few shortcomings. First, the interpolation effects related to the projection of 3-D volumes onto the cortical surface is a major challenge (Grova et al, 2006;Operto et al, 2008).…”
Section: Comparison With Other Anatomically Constrained Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Previous studies following CSM approaches (Andrade et al, 2001;Chung et al, 2005;Hagler et al, 2006;Qiu et al, 2006), which anatomically constrain the activation mapping, suffer from a few shortcomings. First, the interpolation effects related to the projection of 3-D volumes onto the cortical surface is a major challenge (Grova et al, 2006;Operto et al, 2008).…”
Section: Comparison With Other Anatomically Constrained Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, smoothing leads to spatial inaccuracy and artificial shift of activations, be it using conventional volume-based approaches (e.g., SPM) or CSM (Jo et al, 2007(Jo et al, , 2008Mikl et al, 2008). Although the cortical 2-D diffusion smoothing of CSM approaches, rather than 3-D isotropic Gaussian smoothing of conventional volume-based approaches, prevents overlap of activation centers that are geodesically distant but close in a Euclidean sense (e.g., two points, at the opposite sides of a sulcus) (Andrade et al, 2001), the resulting smoothed signal can still be influenced by sources that are geodesically adjacent. tSPMsgwt overcomes these two limitations by not smoothing the data in the first place and keeping the analysis within the native voxel-space.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Anatomically Constrained Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, cortical surface models allow for better visualization of activations, providing a more global view than single slices and a better view of the spatial extent of activation foci and their locations relative to each other and to sulcal/ gyral landmarks (Dale and Sereno, 1993). Second, statistical methods for the analysis of single subject data can benefit from the exclusion of non-gray matter signals, and smoothing signals along the cortical surface, rather than in 3D results in superior resolution and sensitivity (Kiebel et al, 2000;Andrade et al, 2001;Formisano et al, 2004). Finally, group analysis with cortical surface models employs inter-subject alignment based on the patterns of sulci and gyri, as opposed to Talairach registration which often ignores sulcal/gyral landmarks and tends to blur activity across neighboring banks of a sulcus (Fischl et al, 1999a;Fischl et al, 1999b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another extension that could be introduced at little expense concerns the analysis on the cortical surface, as proposed in (Andrade et al, 2001). This will probably improve the sensitivity of detection by constraining the analysis to the cortical surface.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%