ArticleNeuroradiology2015
Effects of scanner acoustic noise on intrinsic brain activity during auditory stimulation.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listening Without the Noise: Near-Silent Looping Star fMRI Reveals Neural Processing of Degraded Speech.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Model-based reconstruction for looping-star MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Acoustic fMRI-Scanner Noise on the Human Resting State.Brain topography · 2023Article
- Revealing the mechanisms behind novel auditory stimuli discrimination: An evaluation of silent functional MRI using looping star.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough the effects of scanner background noise (SBN) during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have been extensively investigated for the brain regions involved in auditory processing, its impact on other types of intrinsic brain activity has largely been neglected. The present study evaluated the influence of SBN on a number of intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) during auditory stimulation by comparing the results obtained using sparse temporal acquisition (STA) with those using continuous acquisition (CA).
methodsFourteen healthy subjects were presented with classical music pieces in a block paradigm during two sessions of STA and CA. A volume-matched CA dataset (CAm) was generated by subsampling the CA dataset to temporally match it with the STA data. Independent component analysis was performed on the concatenated STA-CAm datasets, and voxel data, time courses, power spectra, and functional connectivity were compared.
resultsThe ICA revealed 19 ICNs; the auditory, default mode, salience, and frontoparietal networks showed greater activity in the STA. The spectral peaks in 17 networks corresponded to the stimulation cycles in the STA, while only five networks displayed this correspondence in the CA. The dorsal default mode and salience networks exhibited stronger correlations with the stimulus waveform in the STA.
conclusionsSBN appeared to influence not only the areas of auditory response but also the majority of other ICNs, including attention and sensory networks. Therefore, SBN should be regarded as a serious nuisance factor during fMRI studies investigating intrinsic brain activity under external stimulation or task loads.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26193957What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.