Table 1.
Overview of MRI simulator training studies in children.
|
Sample |
Simulation training |
MRI protocol and outcomes |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, Year | na | Age (M ± SD) [range]e | DX | IQ (M ± SD)e | Head motion track | Duration (min) | Repeated visits | Completion (%) | MRI session | MRI QC (quantitative) | MRI success rateh |
| Rosenberg et al., 1997 | 32 | 12 ± 3.7 [6–17] | OCD (16), TD (16) | – | N | 15–30 | N | 100% | T1 (13') | N | T1: 100% |
| Epstein et al., 2007 | 23 | 17.3 ± 1.2 | ADHD (12), TD (11) | – | Y | 30 | N | 100% | T-fMRI (30') | Y | T-fMRI: 89% |
| De Bie et al., 2010 | 90 | 6.5 ± 3.2. [3–14] | TD | – | N | 30–60 | Y | 94% | T1, T-fMRI (20'–45') | Y | T1: 90%, T-fMRI: 70% |
| Barnea-Goraly et al., 2014 | 226 | 6.7 ± 1.7 [4–10] | TD | – | N | 30–60 | N | 98% | T1, DTI (25') | Y | T1: 92%, DTI: 78% |
| Theys et al., 2014 | 76 | 6.2 ± 0.3. [6–7] | TD | – | N | 30–45 | N | 100% | DTI, R-fMRI (30') | Y | DTI: 79%, R-fMRI: 82% |
| Nordahl et al., 2016 | 17 | 11 ± 1.4 [9–13] | ASD | 67.8 ± 24.2 | Y | < 120 | Y | 100% | T1, DTI (15') | Y | T1:100%, DTI: 94% |
| Gabrielsen et al., 2018 | 56 | 12.2 ± 3 [7–17] | ASD (37), TD (19) | LVCP: 54 ± 18, HVCP: 107 ± 14, TC: 112 ± 13 | N | – | N | – | T1, R-fMRI (20') | Y | R-fMRI: 100% |
| Thieba et al., 2018 | 20 | 3.3 ± 0.7 [2–5] | TD | f | N | 30–40 | N | 100% | DTI, T1, T2 (15')g | Y | 40% passed all, 50% passed at least one scan |
| Sandbank and Cascio, 2019 | 2 | C1:6, C2:8 | ASD | C1:65, C2:123 | Y | 60' | Y | 100% | DTI (20') | N | NR |
| Pua et al., 2020 | 12b | 9.9 ± 2.2 [7–13] | ASD (9), TD (3) | – | N | 30 | N | 100% | T1, R-fMRI (45') | Y | fMRI: 96% |
| Yamada et al., 2020 | 241 | [4–17] | TD (102), NDD (139)d | – | N | 40–60 | N | 99% | T2, DTI, R-fMRI (30–60') | Y | R-fMRI 98% TD; 94% NDD |
| Horien et al., 2020 | 37c | 11.2 ± 2.5 | ASD (5), TD (32) | Formal: 112 ± 14, Informal: 113 ± 13 | Y | Formal: 45–50'; Informal: 15' | N | Formal:86%; Informal: 100% | T-fMRI, R-fMRI (60') | Y | fMRI > 0.1 mm motion = 71% informal vs. 32% formal group |
Abbreviations: ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; DD, developmental disability, DX, diagnosis; IQ, intelligence quotient, n, number of subjects; N, no; TD, typically developing; Y, yes.
Number of children attempting MRI simulator training protocol.
n = 6 pairs of monozygotic twins concordant (3 pairs) or discordant (3 pairs) for ASD.
Included a sample of 21 children (n = 14 with a formal MRI simulator training, 7 without) and another sample of 16 children (all undergoing a formal training and used as a replication sample).
NDD included congenital genetic syndromes, ADHD, ASD, mild intellectual disability with unknown etiology, other behavioral and developmental disorders.
Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) and/or range are provided as available/derivable.
Used the Developmental NEuroPSYchological Assessment (NEPSY) (Korkman et al., 2007) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development instead of standard IQ scores (Lennon et al., 2008).
Resting-state fMRI (R-fMRI) was also acquired as time permitted but not analyzed.
The criteria for MRI data success varied by study. They are largely based on visual inspection for T1 except for Nordahl that used quantitative metrics of motion for functional MRI and DTI.