Spatial specificity of the functional MRI blood oxygenation response relative to neuronal activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous attempts at characterizing the spatial specificity of the blood oxygenation level dependent functional MRI (BOLD fMRI) response by estimating its point-spread function (PSF) have conventionally relied on spatial representations of visual stimuli in area V1. Consequently, their estimates were confounded by the width and scatter of receptive fields of V1 neurons. Here, we circumvent these limits by instead using the inherent cortical spatial organization of ocular dominance columns (ODCs) to determine the PSF for both Gradient Echo (GE) and Spin Echo (SE) BOLD imaging at 7 Tesla. By applying Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling on a probabilistic generative model of imaging ODCs, we quantified the PSFs that best predict the spatial structure and magnitude of differential ODCs’ responses. Prior distributions for the ODC model parameters were determined by analyzing published data of cytochrome oxidase patterns from post-mortem histology of human V1 and of neurophysio-logical ocular dominance indices. The most probable PSF full-widths at halfmaximum were 0.82 mm (SE) and 1.02 mm (GE). Our results provide a quantitative basis for the spatial specificity of BOLD fMRI at ultra-high fields, which can be used for planning and interpretation of high-resolution differential fMRI of fine-scale cortical organizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".