Does functional MRI detect activation in white matter? A review of emerging evidence, issues, and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a non-invasive technique that allows for visualization of activated brain regions. Until recently, fMRI studies have focused on gray matter. There are two main reasons white matter fMRI remains controversial: (1) the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) fMRI signal depends on cerebral blood flow and volume, which are lower in white matter than gray matter and (2) fMRI signal has been associated with post-synaptic potentials (mainly localized in gray matter) as opposed to action potentials (the primary type of neural activity in white matter). Despite these observations, there is no direct evidence against measuring fMRI activation in white matter and reports of fMRI activation in white matter continue to increase. The questions underlying white matter fMRI activation are important. White matter fMRI activation has the potential to greatly expand the breadth of brain connectivity research, as well as improve the assessment and diagnosis of white matter and connectivity disorders. The current review provides an overview of the motivation to investigate white matter fMRI activation, as well as the published evidence of this phenomenon. We speculate on possible neurophysiologic bases of white matter fMRI signals, and discuss potential explanations for why reports of white matter fMRI activation are relatively scarce. We end with a discussion of future basic and clinical research directions in the study of white matter fMRI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".