de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
Deutsch
 
Hilfe Wegweiser Datenschutzhinweis Impressum Kontakt
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

Comparing MEG and fMRI views to naming actions and objects

MPG-Autoren
Es sind keine MPG-Autoren in der Publikation vorhanden
Externe Ressourcen
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

20785_ftp-1.pdf
(Verlagsversion), 2MB

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

Liljeström, M., Hulten, A., Parkkonen, L., & Salmelin, R. (2009). Comparing MEG and fMRI views to naming actions and objects. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 1845-1856. doi:10.1002/hbm.20785.


Zitierlink: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-A09F-4
Zusammenfassung
Most neuroimaging studies are performed using one imaging method only, either functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), or magnetoencephalography (MEG). Information on both location and timing has been sought by recording fMRI and EEG, simultaneously, or MEG and fMRI in separate sessions. Such approaches assume similar active areas whether detected via hemodynamic or electrophysiological signatures. Direct comparisons, after independent analysis of data from each imaging modality, have been conducted primarily on low-level sensory processing. Here, we report MEG (timing and location) and fMRI (location) results in 11 subjects when they named pictures that depicted an action or an object. The experimental design was exactly the same for the two imaging modalities. The MEG data were analyzed with two standard approaches: a set of equivalent current dipoles and a distributed minimum norm estimate. The fMRI blood-oxygenlevel dependent (BOLD) data were subjected to the usual random-effect contrast analysis. At the group level, MEG and fMRI data showed fairly good convergence, with both overall activation patterns and task effects localizing to comparable cortical regions. There were some systematic discrepancies, however, and the correspondence was less compelling in the individual subjects. The present analysis should be helpful in reconciling results of fMRI and MEG studies on high-level cognitive functions