Volume 13 Supplement 1

Twenty First Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2012

Open Access

fMRI correlates for low frequency local field potentials appear as a spatiotemporal dynamic under multiple anesthetic conditions

  • Garth J Thompson1Email author,
  • Wen-Ju Pan1,
  • Matthew E Magnuson1 and
  • Shella D Keilholz1
BMC Neuroscience201213(Suppl 1):O19

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-13-S1-O19

Published: 16 July 2012

In the previous decade, interest in the “functional connectivity” of the brain has greatly increased, but the nature of the signal underlying derived predictive metrics remains poorly understood [1]. A typical study uses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and calculates regions of correlated low-frequency activity or “functional networks” when no task is being performed, the “resting state”. However, unlike traditional block/event based fMRI, the spontaneous fluctuations that determine such networks may not relate to a standard “hemodynamic response” to neural activity [2] and may be task and brain region dependent [1]. Ten rats were anesthetized with either isoflurane (iso) or dexmedetomidine (med). Each rat had simultaneous local field potentials (LFP) [3] recorded from implanted electrodes in bilateral primary somatosensory cortex (SI) simultaneously with single-slice fMRI of SI [4]. After preprocessing, signals were filtered to regions of significant spectral coherence (0.04-0.18Hz iso, 0.05-0.3Hz med). Pearson correlation (rt) was calculated between LFP signals at time shifts -10s to 10s relative to fMRI, at every fMRI voxel (Figure 1B). Instead of a simple hemodynamic response, the LFP correlates appeared both to have a component of spatial propagation (Figure 1B, white arrows), and alternation between positive and negative correlation. This was observed using both anesthesias and suggests that LFPs in coherent frequencies do not simply reflect local activation, but may instead be part of a large scale dynamic process. Using an fMRI-based algorithm validated in both anesthetized rats and awake humans [5], a spatiotemporal dynamic was produced that was highly similar to rt (Figure 1C). Spatial correlation (rs) between the two types of pattern reached a maximum at approximately the same shift between patterns in all rats, mean rs = 0.25 (med) and mean rs = 0.23 (iso), with mean rs > 0.10 indicating significance at p < 0.05 when using boot-strapping and correcting for multiple comparisons [6]. These results suggest that the neural basis of functional networks may be more complex than a simple hemodynamic response and possibly contains contributions from large-scale neuromodulatory processes.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2202-13-S1-O19/MediaObjects/12868_2012_Article_2536_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

A. A coronal image of a rat’s brain in the same plane as the fMRI images used in this study. B. (med) rt between LFP and fMRI at each voxel, times listed are the time shift of LFP prior to fMRI. C. (med) fMRI pattern from Majeed et al. algorithm [5], times listed are arbitrary, so they are shifted to match (B).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology

References

  1. Sadaghiani S, Hesselmann G, Friston KJ, Kleinschmidt A: The relation of ongoing brain activity, evoked neural responses, and cognition. Front Syst Neurosci. 2010, 4: 20-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Logothetis NK, Murayama Y, Augath M, Steffen T, Werner J, Oeltermann A: How not to study spontaneous activity. Neuroimage. 2009, 45 (4): 1080-1089. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Logothetis NK, Pauls J, Augath M, Trinath T, Oeltermann A: Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature. 2001, 412 (6843): 150-157. 10.1038/35084005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Pan WJ, Thompson G, Magnuson M, Majeed W, Jaeger D, Keilholz S: Simultaneous FMRI and electrophysiology in the rodent brain. J Vis Exp. 2010, 42
  5. Majeed W, Magnuson M, Hasenkamp W, Schwarb H, Schumacher EH, Barsalou L, Keilholz SD: Spatiotemporal dynamics of low frequency BOLD fluctuations in rats and humans. Neuroimage. 2011, 54 (2): 1140-1150. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.030.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvajal-Rodriguez A, de Una-Alvarez J, Rolan-Alvarez E: A new multitest correction (SGoF) that increases its statistical power when increasing the number of tests. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 209-10.1186/1471-2105-10-209.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Thompson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement