2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11684-019-0704-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PET imaging on neurofunctional changes after optogenetic stimulation in a rat model of panic disorder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We adopted two independent t -tests to evaluate regional metabolic differences between baseline and post-stimulation PET images. Statistical significance was determined when p value < 0.01 and cluster Ke > 100 [ 10 ]. The lesion-to-normal (L/N) ratio was used for semi-quantitative analysis by using PMOD (v.3.902, PMOD Technologies Ltd.).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We adopted two independent t -tests to evaluate regional metabolic differences between baseline and post-stimulation PET images. Statistical significance was determined when p value < 0.01 and cluster Ke > 100 [ 10 ]. The lesion-to-normal (L/N) ratio was used for semi-quantitative analysis by using PMOD (v.3.902, PMOD Technologies Ltd.).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We adopted two independent t-tests to evaluate regional metabolic differences between baseline and post-stimulation PET images. Statistical signi cance was determined when P value < 0.01 and cluster Ke > 100 [10]. The lesion-to-normal (L/N) ratio was used for semi-quantitative analysis by using PMOD (v.3.902, PMOD Technologies Ltd.).…”
Section: Pet Imaging and Image Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A novel tool towards this goal is the combination of neuromodulation techniques with whole-brain functional neuroimaging to characterize regional activity both locally and distally [2]. Several studies have been already produced combining invasive modulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), optogenetic stimulation and chemogenetics, as well as non-invasive ones like focused ultrasound stimulation (FUS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS), with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), showing that this approach is highly promising [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. However, within the invasive techniques, lack of cell-type and spatial specificity, together with the development of scar tissue around chronic implants and complications arising from parasitic Joule heating are well-known issues with electrical stimulation [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%