Premium
Comparison of matched BOLD and FAIR 4.0T‐fMRI with [ 15 O ] water PET brain volumes
Author(s) -
Zaini M. R.,
Strother S. C.,
Anderson J. R.,
Liow J.S.,
Kjems U.,
Tegeler C.,
Kim S.G.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.598652
Subject(s) - functional magnetic resonance imaging , image resolution , smoothing , artificial intelligence , computer science , partial volume , computer vision , pattern recognition (psychology) , psychology , neuroscience
Valid comparisons of functional activation volumes from fMRI and PET require accurate registration, matched spatial resolution, and if possible matched noise. We coregistered 4.0T‐fMRI and PET volumes, using a series of linear and nonlinear transformations applied to the PET volumes. Because of the limited number of fMRI slices that were available, PET volumes were transformed to the fMRI space. Since 4.0T‐fMRI and 4.0T‐MRI volumes have significant spatial distortion due to magnet inhomogeneities, high resolution 1.5T‐MRI volumes were nonlinearly transformed to 4.0T‐MRI volumes as part of the transformation chain. The smoothing effects of these registration transformations were measured, in order to match the spatial resolution of the coregistered fMRI and PET volumes. Spatial resolution of the transformed PET volumes in the fMRI space was degraded by up to 60% due to the transformation process. Due to both the image acquisition characteristics and the coregistration process, the transformed PET volumes had a spatial resolution that was lower than that of fMRI. Therefore, significant smoothing of fMRI volumes was necessary to match their spatial resolution with that of the transformed PET volumes. Matching the spatial resolution of the fMRI volumes to those of the transformed PET volumes was achieved by matching the shape of their point spread functions. In order to do this, Gaussian kernels were employed to smooth the fMRI volumes. We were unable to simultaneously match the resolution and noise of fMRI and PET signals in the motor cortex. Activation maps derived from transformed PET and smoothed fMRI volumes were compared. Contralateral motor cortex was active in all modalities but there were large variations in the size of the activated region and its signal to noise ratio across BOLD, FAIR, and PET images within each subject. Nevertheless, the relative CBF changes measured by FAIR were consistent with those determined by PET.