Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25191214›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2014

Contributions and complexities from the use of in vivo animal models to improve understanding of human neuroimaging signals.

Chris Martin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Interpreting BOLD: towards a dialogue between cognitive and cellular neuroscience.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Microvascular Dysfunction and Cognitive Impairment.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2016
    Review
  16. Long-latency reductions in gamma power predict hemodynamic changes that underlie the negative BOLD signal.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chris MartinDepartment of Psychology, The University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK.
University of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many of the major advances in our understanding of how functional brain imaging signals relate to neuronal activity over the previous two decades have arisen from physiological research studies involving experimental animal models. This approach has been successful partly because it provides opportunities to measure both the hemodynamic changes that underpin many human functional brain imaging techniques and the neuronal activity about which we wish to make inferences. Although research into the coupling of neuronal and hemodynamic responses using animal models has provided a general validation of the correspondence of neuroimaging signals to specific types of neuronal activity, it is also highlighting the key complexities and uncertainties in estimating neural signals from hemodynamic markers. This review will detail how research in animal models is contributing to our rapidly evolving understanding of what human neuroimaging techniques tell us about neuronal activity. It will highlight emerging issues in the interpretation of neuroimaging data that arise from in vivo research studies, for example spatial and temporal constraints to neuroimaging signal interpretation, or the effects of disease and modulatory neurotransmitters upon neurovascular coupling. We will also give critical consideration to the limitations and possible complexities of translating data acquired in the typical animals models used in this area to the arena of human fMRI. These include the commonplace use of anesthesia in animal research studies and the fact that many neuropsychological questions that are being actively explored in humans have limited homologs within current animal models for neuroimaging research. Finally we will highlighting approaches, both in experimental animals models (e.g. imaging in conscious, behaving animals) and human studies (e.g. combined fMRI-EEG), that mitigate against these challenges.

Indexed as

functional magnetic resonance imaginghemodynamicneuroimagingneurovascularrodent

Identifiers

PMID25191214
PMCPMC4137227
OpenAlexW2027428838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.