Skip to main content
PMC home page
Human Brain Mapping logoLink to Human Brain Mapping
. 1999 May 18;7(3):213–223. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)7:3<213::AID-HBM5>3.0.CO;2-N

“sparse” temporal sampling in auditory fMRI

Deborah A Hall 1,✉, Mark P Haggard 1, Michael A Akeroyd 1, Alan R Palmer 1, A Quentin Summerfield 1, Michael R Elliott 2, Elaine M Gurney 1, Richard W Bowtell 2
PMCID: PMC6873323  PMID: 10194620

Abstract

The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore central auditory function may be compromised by the intense bursts of stray acoustic noise produced by the scanner whenever the magnetic resonance signal is read out. We present results evaluating the use of one method to reduce the effect of the scanner noise: “sparse” temporal sampling. Using this technique, single volumes of brain images are acquired at the end of stimulus and baseline conditions. To optimize detection of the activation, images are taken near to the maxima and minima of the hemodynamic response during the experimental cycle. Thus, the effective auditory stimulus for the activation is not masked by the scanner noise.

In experiment 1, the course of the hemodynamic response to auditory stimulation was mapped during continuous task performance. The mean peak of the response was at 10.5 sec after stimulus onset, with little further change until stimulus offset. In experiment 2, sparse imaging was used to acquire activation images. Despite the fewer samples with sparse imaging, this method successfully delimited broadly the same regions of activation as conventional continuous imaging. However, the mean percentage MR signal change within the region of interest was greater using sparse imaging. Auditory experiments that use continuous imaging methods may measure activation that is a result of an interaction between the stimulus and task factors (e.g., attentive effort) induced by the intense background noise. We suggest that sparse imaging is advantageous in auditory experiments as it ensures that the obtained activation depends on the stimulus alone. Hum. Brain Mapp. 7:213–223, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Keywords: sparse imaging, scanner noise interference, MR signal‐to‐noise ratio

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (111.3 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. Aitkin L. 1990. The auditory cortex: structural and functional bases of auditory perception. London: Chapman and Hall. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandettini PA, Jesmanowicz A, Wong EC, Hyde JS. 1993. Processing strategies for time‐course data sets in functional MRI of the human brain. Magn Reson Med 30:161–173. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=93375843&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandettini PA, Jesmanowicz A, Van Kylen J, Birn RM, Hyde JS. 1998. Functional MRI of brain activation induced by scanner acoustic noise. Magn Reson Med 39:410–416. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=98158362&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Binder JR, Rao SM, Hammeke TA, Yetkin YZ, Jesmanowicz A, Bandettini PA, Wong EC, Estowski LD, Goldstein MD, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. 1994a. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human auditory cortex. Ann Neurol 35:662–672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Binder JR, Rao SM, Hammeke TA, Frost JA, Bandettini PA, Hyde JS. 1994b. Effects of stimulus rate on signal response during functional magnetic resonance imaging of auditory cortex. Cogn Brain Res 2:31–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blamire AM, Ogawa S, Ugurbil K, Rothman D, McCarthy G, Ellerman JM, Hyder F, Rattner Z, Shulman RG. 1992. Dynamic mapping of the human visual cortex by high‐speed magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:11069–11073. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=93066386&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowtell R, Mansfield P, Coxon RJ, Harvey PR, Glover PM. 1994. High‐resolution EPI at 3.0 T. Magn Reson Mater Phys Med Biol 2:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bullock DC, Chambers JC, Palmer AR. 1998. A high‐quality sound system for use in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Audiol 32:96. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dale A, Buckner R. 1997. Selective averaging of rapidly presented individual trials using fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 5:329–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Friston KJ. 1997. Imaging cognitive anatomy. Trends Cogn Sci 1:21–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Friston KJ, Jezzard P, Turner R. 1994. Analysis of functional MRI time‐series. Hum Brain Mapp 1:153171. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hedeen RA, Edelstein WA. 1997. Characterization and prediction of gradient acoustic noise in MR imagers. Magn Reson Med 37:7–10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=97133229&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Henkelman RM, Bronskill MJ. 1987. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging In: Gore JC, editor. Reviews of magnetic resonance in medicine, volume 2. New York: Pergamon Press; p 1–127. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hickok G, Love T, Swinney D, Wong EC, Buxton RB. 1997. Functional MR imaging during auditory word perception: a single‐trial presentation paradigm. Brain Lang 58:197–201. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=97327436&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hu X, Huu Le T, Ugurbil K. 1996. Evaluation of the early response in fMRI using short stimulus duration. Neuroimage 3:7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Josephs O, Turner R, Friston K. 1997. Event‐related fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 5:243–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kowalski N, Versnel H, Shamma SA. 1995. Comparison of responses in the anterior and primary auditory fields of the ferret cortex. J Neurophysiol 73:1513–1523. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=95370883&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Chesler DA, Goldberg IE, Weiskoff RM, Poncelet BP, Kennedy DN, Hoppel BE, Cohen MS, Turner R, Cheng HM, Brady TJ, Rosen BR. 1992. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89:5675–5679. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=92302304&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lauter JL, Herscovitch P, Formby C, Raichle ME. 1985. Tonotopic organisation in human auditory cortex revealed by positron emission tomography, Hear Res 20:199–205. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=86111349&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Millen SJ, Haughton VM, Yetkin Z. 1995. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the central auditory pathway following speech and pure‐tone stimuli. Laryngoscope 105:1305–1310. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=96101791&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Penhune VB, Zatorre RJ, Macdonald JD, Evans AC. 1996. Interhemispheric anatomical differences in human primary auditory‐cortex: probabilistic mapping and volume measurement from magnetic‐resonance scans. Cereb Cortex 6:661–672. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=97079470&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Price CJ, Friston KJ. 1997. Cognitive conjunction: a new approach to brain activation experiments. Neuroimage 5:261–270. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=98005422&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Price C, Wise R, Ramsay S, Friston K, Howard D, Patterson K, Frakowiak R. 1992. Regional response differences within the human auditory cortex when listening to words. Neurosci Lett 146:179–182. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=93149447&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ravicz ME, Melcher JR, Talavage TM, Benson RR, Rosen BR, Kiang NYS. 1997. Characterisation and reduction of imager generated noise during fMRI In: Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 20th Midwinter meeting, p 205. [Google Scholar]
  25. Richter W, Ugurbil K, Kim SG. 1996. Limitations of temporal resolution in fMRI. Neuroimage 3:38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rinck P. 1993. Magnetic resonance in medicine. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; p 1–241. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rivier F, Clarke S. 1997. Cytochrome oxidase, acetylcholinesterase, and NADPH‐diaphorase staining in human supratemporal and insular cortex: evidence for multiple auditory areas. Neuroimage 6:288–304. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=98080653&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schreiner CE, Mendelson JR. 1990. Functional topography of cat primary auditory cortex: distribution of integrated excitation. J Neurophysiol 64:1442–1459. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=91132245&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Shah NJ, Jäncke L, Gross‐Ruyken ML, Posse S, Müller‐Gärtner HW. 1997. How does acoustic masking noise affect fMRI of the auditory cortex? Neuroimage 5:195. [Google Scholar]
  30. Shamma SA, Fleshman JW, Wiser PR, Versnel H. 1993. Organization of response areas in ferret primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 69:367–383. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=93210550&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sutter ML, Schreiner CE. 1991. Physiology and topography of neurons with multipeaked tuning curves in cat primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 65:1207–1226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=91332615&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Talavage TM, Ledden PJ, Sereno MI, Rosen BR, Dale AM. 1997. Multiple phase‐encoded tonotopic maps in human auditory cortex. Neuroimage 5:8. [Google Scholar]
  33. Talavage TM, Edmister WB, Ledden PJ, Weisskoff RM. 1998a. Comparison of impact of fMRI sequence acoustics on auditory cortex activation In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. p 1503. [Google Scholar]
  34. Talavage TM, Edmister WB, Ledden PJ, Weisskoff RM. 1998b. Quantification of the impact of fMRI scanner noise on auditory cortex In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. p 1502. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wessinger CM, Buoncore MH, Kussmaul CL, Mangun GR. 1997. Tonotopy in human auditory cortex examined with fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp 5:18–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Woodruff PWR, Benson RR, Bandettini PA, Kwong KK, Howard RJ, Talavage T, Belliveau J, Rosen BR. 1996. Modulation of auditory and visual cortex by selective attention is modality‐dependent. Neuroreport 7:1909–1913. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=97061660&form=6&db=m&Dopt=r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Zeki S. 1993. A vision of the brain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; p 1–366. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Brain Mapping are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES