Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 11;113(43):E6679–E6685. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608117113

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Oscillatory fMRI responses in V1 acquired at 3 T can be detected at each stimulus frequency and are an order of magnitude larger than predicted. (A) An example of slice positioning in experiment 1 (five slices). (B) An example of the V1 ROI in a single subject. (C) Stimulus-triggered mean response in V1 in experiment 1, locked to the stimulation cycle at 0.2 Hz. The shaded area shows the SE across runs. (D) As in C, runs at 0.33 Hz. (E) As in C, runs at 0.5 Hz. (F–H) Mean response in V1 in experiment 2. (I) Amplitude of the fMRI response across stimulus frequencies, compared with the linear model using the SPM HRF. Error bars are 95% CIs (bootstrap). (J) Ratio of the fMRI response at 0.2 Hz to the response at 0.5 Hz across all subjects who participated in both conditions: Each individual subject had a larger response to the 0.5-Hz stimulus than predicted by the canonical linear model with the SPM HRF (black dashed line).