Cargando…

Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM

The classical model of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses by Buxton et al. [Buxton, R.B., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., 1998. Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model. Magn. Reson. Med. 39, 855–864] has been very important in providing a biophys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stephan, Klaas Enno, Weiskopf, Nikolaus, Drysdale, Peter M., Robinson, Peter A., Friston, Karl J.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17884583
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040
_version_ 1782164290693758976
author Stephan, Klaas Enno
Weiskopf, Nikolaus
Drysdale, Peter M.
Robinson, Peter A.
Friston, Karl J.
author_facet Stephan, Klaas Enno
Weiskopf, Nikolaus
Drysdale, Peter M.
Robinson, Peter A.
Friston, Karl J.
author_sort Stephan, Klaas Enno
collection PubMed
description The classical model of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses by Buxton et al. [Buxton, R.B., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., 1998. Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model. Magn. Reson. Med. 39, 855–864] has been very important in providing a biophysically plausible framework for explaining different aspects of hemodynamic responses. It also plays an important role in the hemodynamic forward model for dynamic causal modeling (DCM) of fMRI data. A recent study by Obata et al. [Obata, T., Liu, T.T., Miller, K.L., Luh, W.M., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., Buxton, R.B., 2004. Discrepancies between BOLD and flow dynamics in primary and supplementary motor areas: application of the Balloon model to the interpretation of BOLD transients. NeuroImage 21, 144–153] linearized the BOLD signal equation and suggested a revised form for the model coefficients. In this paper, we show that the classical and revised models are special cases of a generalized model. The BOLD signal equation of this generalized model can be reduced to that of the classical Buxton model by simplifying the coefficients or can be linearized to give the Obata model. Given the importance of hemodynamic models for investigating BOLD responses and analyses of effective connectivity with DCM, the question arises which formulation is the best model for empirically measured BOLD responses. In this article, we address this question by embedding different variants of the BOLD signal equation in a well-established DCM of functional interactions among visual areas. This allows us to compare the ensuing models using Bayesian model selection. Our model comparison approach had a factorial structure, comparing eight different hemodynamic models based on (i) classical vs. revised forms for the coefficients, (ii) linear vs. non-linear output equations, and (iii) fixed vs. free parameters, ε, for region-specific ratios of intra- and extravascular signals. Using fMRI data from a group of twelve subjects, we demonstrate that the best model is a non-linear model with a revised form for the coefficients, in which ε is treated as a free parameter.
format Text
id pubmed-2636182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26361822009-02-05 Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM Stephan, Klaas Enno Weiskopf, Nikolaus Drysdale, Peter M. Robinson, Peter A. Friston, Karl J. Neuroimage Article The classical model of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses by Buxton et al. [Buxton, R.B., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., 1998. Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model. Magn. Reson. Med. 39, 855–864] has been very important in providing a biophysically plausible framework for explaining different aspects of hemodynamic responses. It also plays an important role in the hemodynamic forward model for dynamic causal modeling (DCM) of fMRI data. A recent study by Obata et al. [Obata, T., Liu, T.T., Miller, K.L., Luh, W.M., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., Buxton, R.B., 2004. Discrepancies between BOLD and flow dynamics in primary and supplementary motor areas: application of the Balloon model to the interpretation of BOLD transients. NeuroImage 21, 144–153] linearized the BOLD signal equation and suggested a revised form for the model coefficients. In this paper, we show that the classical and revised models are special cases of a generalized model. The BOLD signal equation of this generalized model can be reduced to that of the classical Buxton model by simplifying the coefficients or can be linearized to give the Obata model. Given the importance of hemodynamic models for investigating BOLD responses and analyses of effective connectivity with DCM, the question arises which formulation is the best model for empirically measured BOLD responses. In this article, we address this question by embedding different variants of the BOLD signal equation in a well-established DCM of functional interactions among visual areas. This allows us to compare the ensuing models using Bayesian model selection. Our model comparison approach had a factorial structure, comparing eight different hemodynamic models based on (i) classical vs. revised forms for the coefficients, (ii) linear vs. non-linear output equations, and (iii) fixed vs. free parameters, ε, for region-specific ratios of intra- and extravascular signals. Using fMRI data from a group of twelve subjects, we demonstrate that the best model is a non-linear model with a revised form for the coefficients, in which ε is treated as a free parameter. Academic Press 2007-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2636182/ /pubmed/17884583 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040 Text en © 2007 Elsevier Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license
spellingShingle Article
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Weiskopf, Nikolaus
Drysdale, Peter M.
Robinson, Peter A.
Friston, Karl J.
Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title_full Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title_fullStr Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title_full_unstemmed Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title_short Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM
title_sort comparing hemodynamic models with dcm
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17884583
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040
work_keys_str_mv AT stephanklaasenno comparinghemodynamicmodelswithdcm
AT weiskopfnikolaus comparinghemodynamicmodelswithdcm
AT drysdalepeterm comparinghemodynamicmodelswithdcm
AT robinsonpetera comparinghemodynamicmodelswithdcm
AT fristonkarlj comparinghemodynamicmodelswithdcm