nerdculture.de is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Be excellent to each other, live humanism, no nazis, no hate speech. Not only for nerds, but the domain is somewhat cool. ;) No bots in general. Languages: DE, EN, FR, NL, ES, IT

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.2K
active users

#fmri

1 post1 participant0 posts today

#Zoomposium with Professor Dr. John-Dylan #Haynes: “In search of the #code of the #brain

In order to carry out #BrainReading, large amounts of #data are collected from the #fMRI #scans of the test subjects. The main areas examined are visual #perception, visual #imagination, short-term #memories, subliminal #stimuli, romantic #feelings, #impulse control and unconscious #inclinations.

More at: philosophies.de/index.php/2023

or: youtu.be/qMPfefKEe4A

#Zoomposium with Professor Dr. John-Dylan #Haynes: “In search of the #code of the #brain

In order to carry out #Brain #reading large amounts of #data are collected from the #fMRI #scans of the test subjects. The main areas examined are visual #perception, visual #imagination, short-term #memories, subliminal #stimuli, romantic #feelings, #impulse control and unconscious #inclinations.

More at: philosophies.de/index.php/2023

or: youtu.be/qMPfefKEe4A

medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02

…people have different brain structures that never quite match when aligned to a standardized #brainatlas…different input dimensions are required for each subject.

…neuroscience-informed activity mapping within the #fMRI encoder…allows the system to accommodate these varying input shapes across subjects.

By separating a voxel's functional information from its raw fMRI value, the model leverages pre-existing knowledge from #neuroscience #research

Medical Xpress · Direct translation of brain imaging to text with MindLLMBy Justin Jackson

Predicting human brain states with transformer arxiv.org/abs/2412.19814 #AI #fMRI #neuroscience; GitHub code at github.com/syf0122/brain_state

arXiv.orgPredicting Human Brain States with TransformerThe human brain is a complex and highly dynamic system, and our current knowledge of its functional mechanism is still very limited. Fortunately, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we can observe blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) changes, reflecting neural activity, to infer brain states and dynamics. In this paper, we ask the question of whether the brain states rep-resented by the regional brain fMRI can be predicted. Due to the success of self-attention and the transformer architecture in sequential auto-regression problems (e.g., language modelling or music generation), we explore the possi-bility of the use of transformers to predict human brain resting states based on the large-scale high-quality fMRI data from the human connectome project (HCP). Current results have shown that our model can accurately predict the brain states up to 5.04s with the previous 21.6s. Furthermore, even though the prediction error accumulates for the prediction of a longer time period, the gen-erated fMRI brain states reflect the architecture of functional connectome. These promising initial results demonstrate the possibility of developing gen-erative models for fMRI data using self-attention that learns the functional or-ganization of the human brain. Our code is available at: https://github.com/syf0122/brain_state_pred.

I posted a new introduction to surface #gifti and volume #NIfTI #fMRI data at mvpa.blogspot.com/2025/01/intr.

The material is mostly general, with all examples using #baseR #rstats code; it's accompanied by a major update to my gifti #knitr tutorial.

I hope these will be useful to folks getting started with #neuroimaging datasets, as well as anyone looking for example scripts for reading, plotting, and manipulating (human fMRI) brain data files.

mvpa.blogspot.comintro to working with volume and surface brain dataWhen preparing to update my surface (gifti) tutorial knitr , I realized that some of the confusion I was trying to address wasn't due to the...

Something I've always wondered about #fMRI - how can we interpret the BOLD signal when we don't know if any changes mostly come from inhibitory or excitatory neurons? Or should it just be used to say "region x is doing stuff" without ever knowing what it is doing?

What if inhibitory cells stop firing in a specific area? This should be registered as a "decreased activity" when it might just have allowed its excitatory cells to fire more but you wouldn't see it because inhibitory cells make the bulk of the energy consumption?

Kids (~10 yrs) with Disruptive Behavior Disorders show reduced #NucleusAccumbens activity during monetary reward anticipation ( #ICYMI , #FMRI , #ABCD , #MIDTask , #neuroscience , #neurophenotyping )...

psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/

American Journal of PsychiatryReward Processing in Children With Disruptive Behavior Disorders and Callous-Unemotional Traits in the ABCD Study | American Journal of PsychiatryObjective: Disrupted reward processing is implicated in the etiology of disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) and callous-unemotional traits. However, neuroimaging investigations of reward processing underlying these phenotypes remain sparse. The authors examined neural sensitivity in response to reward anticipation and receipt among youths with DBDs, with and without callous-unemotional traits. Methods: Data were obtained from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study (mean age=9.51 years [SD=0.50]; 49% female). Reward-related activation during the monetary incentive delay task was examined across 16 brain regions, including the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), nucleus accumbens (NAcc), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Latent variable modeling was used to examine network-level coactivation. The following diagnostic groups were compared: typically developing youths (N=693) and youths with DBDs (N=995), subdivided into those with callous-unemotional traits (DBD+CU, N=198) and without callous-unemotional traits (DBD only, N=276). Results: During reward anticipation, youths in the overall DBD group (with and without callous-unemotional traits) showed decreased dorsal ACC activation compared with typically developing youths. The DBD-only group exhibited reduced ventral and dorsal striatal activity compared with the DBD+CU and typically developing groups. During reward receipt, youths with DBDs showed increased cortical (e.g., OFC) and subcortical (e.g., NAcc) regional activation compared with typically developing youths. The DBD+CU group demonstrated greater activation in several regions compared with those in the typically developing (e.g., amygdala) and DBD-only (e.g., dorsal ACC) groups. At the network level, the DBD-only group showed reduced anticipatory reward activation compared with the typically developing and DBD+CU groups, whereas youths in the DBD+CU group showed increased activation during reward receipt compared with those in the typically developing group. Conclusions: These findings advance our understanding of unique neuroetiologic pathways to DBDs and callous-unemotional traits.

New preprint out!

TMS is often used to map the motor-cortex representation of the hand muscles. But does the type of stimulation matter?

Mads J Madsen, Lasse Christiansen, Hartwig Siebner and team from @DRCMR used high-resolution TMS-MRI mapping to compare the cortical motor maps produced by single-pulse (SP-TMS) or paired-pulse TMS (PP-TMS).

doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.03.616

PP-TMS probed short-interval intracortical inhibiton (in short SICF) and inter-stimulus intervals were adjusted to match the individual first or second “SICF” peak. SP-TMS and PP-TMS produced spatially distinct yet overlapping spatial corticomotor maps, revealing that they target similar but distinct brain areas.

PP-TMS mapping resulted in a posterior shift of the motor map compared to SP-TMS, producing the strongest shift with PP-TMS at the first SICF peak. Interestingly, the longer the delay between TMS pulses for the first peak, the more the motor map moved posteriorly . This wasn’t true for the second peak.

Together, these findings offer new insights into the functional corticomotor representations within the motor hand region of the human cortex.

bioRxiv · Single and paired TMS pulses engage spatially distinct corticomotor representations in human pericentral cortexSingle-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) can assess corticomotor function in humans by evoking motor evoked potentials (MEP). Paired-pulse TMS at peri-threshold intensity elicits short-latency intracortical facilitation (SICF) with early peaks at inter-pulse intervals of 1.0-1.8ms (SICF1) and 2.4-3ms (SICF2). The similarity between the periodicity of SICF and indirect (I-)waves in the corticospinal volleys evoked by single-pulse TMS suggests that SICF originates from I-wave generating circuits. This study aimed to explore the mechanisms of MEP generation by mapping the corticomotor representations of single-pulse and paired-pulse TMS targeting SICF1 and SICF2 peaks in 14 participants (7 female). MEPs were recorded from two hand muscles and the spatial properties of each corticomotor map were analyzed. For both hand muscles, we found a consistent posterior shift of the center-of-gravity (CoG) for SICF maps compared to single-pulse maps, with a larger shift for SICF1. CoG displacement in the SICF1 map correlated with individual SICF1 latencies. Further, ADM maps consistently peaked more medially than FDI maps and paired-pulse TMS resulted in larger corticomotor maps than single-pulse TMS. This is the first study to show that circuits responsible for SICF have a more posterior representation in the precentral crown than those generating MEPs via single-pulse TMS. These findings indicate that paired-pulse TMS probing SICF1, SICF2, and single-pulse TMS engage overlapping but spatially distinct cortical circuits, adding further insights into the intricate organization of the human motor hand area. New & Noteworthy Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used to study corticomotor physiology in humans, but do they engage the same intracortical circuits? We compared the spatial properties of corticomotor maps elicited by single-pulse TMS to those elicited by paired-pulse short-latency intracortical facilitation (SICF). SICF maps consistently showed a posterior shift in center of gravity compared to single-pulse maps, suggesting that paired-pulse TMS engages cortical circuits that are spatially distinct from single-pulse TMS. ### Competing Interest Statement This work was supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation Interdisciplinary Synergy Program [Biophysically adjusted state-informed cortex stimulation (BASICS); NNF14OC0011413]. Lasse Christiansen holds a personal grant from the Lundbeck Foundation (Grant Nr. R322-2019-2406). Hartwig R. Siebner was supported by a collaborative research grant from Lundbeck Foundation HRS (Grant No. R336-2020-1035). Hartwig R. Siebner has received honoraria as speaker Lundbeck AS, Denmark, and as editor (Neuroimage Clinical) from Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He has received royalties as book editor from Springer Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany, Gyldendal Publishers, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Mads A.J. Madsen, Chloe Chung and Morten G. Jonsson have nothing to declare.
#TMS#MRI#fMRI
Continued thread

"Sub-millimeter resolution fMRI images were obtained from early visual cortex in six subjects performing visual imagery of four different letter shapes" [...] "provided first evidence in favor of detailed topographic organization." #7T #fMRI

"the topographic organization of mental imagery closely resembles that of perception. This lends support to the idea that mental imagery is quasiperceptual not only in terms of its subjective experience but also in terms of its neural representation"