4.6 Article

Measuring functional connectivity in stroke: Approaches and considerations

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 37, Issue 8, Pages 2665-2678

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17709198

Keywords

Functional MRI; stroke; hemodynamics; brain ischemia; MRI

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD061117-05]
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS095741]
  3. American Heart Association [14PRE19610010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent research has demonstrated the importance of global changes to the functional organization of brain network following stroke. Resting functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) is a non-invasive tool that enables the measurement of functional connectivity (FC) across the entire brain while placing minimal demands on the subject. For these reasons, it is a uniquely appealing tool for studying the distant effects of stroke. However, R-fMRI studies rely on a number of premises that cannot be assumed without careful validation in the context of stroke. Here, we describe strategies to identify and mitigate confounds specific to R-fMRI research in cerebrovascular disease. Five main topics are discussed: (a) achieving adequate co-registration of lesioned brains, (b) identifying and removing hemodynamic lags in resting BOLD, (c) identifying other vascular disruptions that affect the resting BOLD signal, (d) selecting an appropriate control cohort, and (e) acquiring sufficient fMRI data to reliably identify FC changes. For each topic, we provide guidelines for steps to improve the interpretability and reproducibility of FC-stroke research. We include a table of confounds and approaches to identify and mitigate each. Our recommendations extend to any research using R-fMRI to study diseases that might alter cerebrovascular flow and dynamics or brain anatomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available