Acoustic noise concerns in functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Human Brain Mapping (Impact Factor: 6.88). 12/2003; 20(3):123-41. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.10134
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Magnetic resonance (MR) acoustic scanner noise may negatively affect the performance of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a problem that worsens at the higher field strengths proposed to enhance fMRI. We present an overview of the current knowledge on the effects of confounding acoustic MR noise in fMRI experiments. The principles and effectiveness of various methods to reduce acoustic noise in fMRI are discussed, practical considerations are addressed and recommendations are made.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early ear infection and trauma, from birth to age 12 are known to have a significant effect on sensory and cognitive development. This effect can be demonstrated through the fMRI study of children who have a history of ear infection compared to a control group. A second research question is the extent to which brain plasticity at an early age can reduce the impact of infection on hearing and cognitive development. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) provides a mapping of brain activity in cognitive and sensory regions by recording the oxygenation state of the local cerebral blood flow. The gradient coils of fMRI scanners generate intense acoustic noise (GCN) - to which the subject is in close proximity - in the range of 90 to 140 db SPL during the imaging process. Clearly this noise will impress its signature on low level brain response patterns. An Active Noise Canceller (ANC) system can suppress the effect of GCN on the subject's perception of a phonetic stimulus at the phoneme, word or phrase level. Due to a superimposition of the frequency and time domain components of the test signal and GCN for MR test, the ANC filtering system performs its function in real time - we must capture the brain's response to the test signal AFTER the noise has been removed. This goal is achieved through the application of field programmable gate array (FPGA) technology of NI LabVIEW. The presentation (in the noisy fMRI environment) of test words and phrases to hearing impaired children can identify sources of distortion to their perceptual processes associated with GCN. Once this distortion has been identified, learning strategies may be introduced to replace the hearing function distorted by early infection as well as the short term effect of GCN. The study of speech cognition without the confounding effect of GCN and with the varying level of GCN for a repeated test signal at later age can be allowed to a measure of recovery through brain plasticity.
    Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery. 02/2013; 3(1):28-42.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Functional MRI (fMRI) resting-state experiments are aimed at identifying brain networks that support basal brain function. Although most investigators consider a 'resting-state' fMRI experiment with no specific external stimulation, subjects are unavoidably under heavy acoustic noise produced by the equipment. In the present study, we evaluated the influence of auditory input on the resting-state networks (RSNs). Twenty-two healthy subjects were scanned using two similar echo-planar imaging sequences in the same 3T MRI scanner: a default pulse sequence and a reduced "silent" pulse sequence. Experimental sessions consisted of two consecutive 7-min runs with noise conditions (default or silent) counterbalanced across subjects. A self-organizing group independent component analysis was applied to fMRI data in order to recognize the RSNs. The insula, left middle frontal gyrus and right precentral and left inferior parietal lobules showed significant differences in the voxel-wise comparison between RSNs depending on noise condition. In the presence of low-level noise, these areas Granger-cause oscillations in RSNs with cognitive implications (dorsal attention and entorhinal), while during high noise acquisition, these connectivities are reduced or inverted. Applying low noise MR acquisitions in research may allow the detection of subtle differences of the RSNs, with implications in experimental planning for resting-state studies, data analysis, and ergonomic factors.
    Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas / Sociedade Brasileira de Biofisica ... [et al.] 04/2013; · 1.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When conducting auditory investigations using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), there are inherent potential confounds that need to be considered. Traditional continuous fMRI acquisition methods produce sounds >90dB which compete with stimuli or produce neural activation masking evoked activity. Sparse scanning methods insert a period of reduced MRI-related noise, between image acquisitions, in which a stimulus can be presented without competition. In this study, we compared sparse and continuous scanning methods to identify the optimal approach to investigate acoustically-evoked cortical, thalamic and midbrain activity in the cat. Using a 7T magnet, we presented broadband noise, 10kHz tones, or 0.5kHz tones in a block design, interleaved with blocks in which no stimulus was presented. Continuous scanning resulted in larger clusters of activation and more peak voxels within the auditory cortex. However, no significant activation was observed within the thalamus. Also, there was no significant difference found, between continuous or sparse scanning, in activations of midbrain structures. Higher magnitude activations were identified in auditory cortex compared to the midbrain using both continuous and sparse scanning. These results indicate that continuous scanning is the preferred method for investigations of auditory cortex in the cat using fMRI. Also, choice of method for future investigations of midbrain activity should be driven by other experimental factors, such as stimulus intensity and task performance during scanning.
    Journal of neuroscience methods 01/2014; · 2.30 Impact Factor


Available from