FMRI and PET of self-paced finger movement: Comparison of intersubject stereotaxic averaged data

Marc Joliot, Dimitri Papathanassiou, Emmanuel Mellet, Olivier Quinton, Nathalie Mazoyer, Patrick Courtheoux, Bernard Mazoyer
NeuroImage. 1999-10-01; 10(4): 430-447
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0483

PubMed
Lire sur PubMed



1. Neuroimage. 1999 Oct;10(4):430-47.

FMRI and PET of self-paced finger movement: comparison of intersubject
stereotaxic averaged data.

Joliot M(1), Papathanassiou D, Mellet E, Quinton O, Mazoyer N, Courtheoux P,
Mazoyer B.

Author information:
(1)Groupe d’Imagerie Neurofonctionelle, UPRES EA 2127, Université de Caen & CEA
LRC 13V, GIP Cyceron, 14074 Caen Cedex, France.

We compared the intersubject-averaged functional anatomy of self-paced right
index finger movement as revealed by (15)O water positron emission tomography
(PET) and blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging
(FMRI) at 1.5 T. Image data sets were acquired with both techniques on a group of
eight subjects, spatially normalized in the stereotaxic space and subsequently
processed in order to get identical smoothness and degrees of freedom.
Intersubject-averaged PET and FMRI activation maps were found congruent in the
left primary sensorimotor area (PSM), bilateral supplementary motor area,
bilateral supra marginalis gyri, left operculum, left inferior parietal lobule,
right middle frontal gyrus, and right cerebellum. In those regions the mean
distance between PET and FMRI local maxima was 7.4 mm. FMRI detected additional
activations in the right precentral gyrus, right rolandic operculum, right
inferior parietal lobule, and bilateral insula, whereas PET demonstrated a higher
detection sensitivity at the deep nuclei level. PET and FMRI percentage signal
variations were found linearly related by a factor around 10, both within the PSM
and across a set of distributed local extrema. However, in most cases, FMRI was
more sensitive than PET, as assessed by t values. Finally the pattern of
deactivations was markedly dissimilar between the two techniques, possibly due to
differences in the “Rest” control task.

Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

DOI: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0483
PMID: 10493901 [Indexed for MEDLINE]

Auteurs Bordeaux Neurocampus