ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2021
Sparse and continuous sampling approaches to fMRI of overt vocalization tasks.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2021. 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.
- Stronger right-hemispheric involvement in language processing is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left-lateralized language-related network and the cingulo-opercular network.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Time-resolved hemodynamic responses to sentence-level speech perception, production, and self-monitoring.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- A multimodal neuroimaging dataset for investigating speech perceptual normalization.Scientific data · 2025Article
- BOLD fMRI responses to amplitude-modulated sounds across age in adult listeners.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sparse temporal sampling has become the dominant paradigm for functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of auditory stimuli or verbal responses, as it allows the presentation or production of stimuli during the relatively quiet periods when there is no gradient switching and ensures that task-related movements are not occurring during scan acquisitions. To date, however, there has been no direct comparison between sparse and continuous acquisition protocols for overt auditory-verbal studies (i.e., speaking or singing). The aim of this study was to determine whether sparse temporal sampling would reduce movement artefacts and show better network activation for overt singing compared to continuous imaging. Fifteen healthy adults performed the same overt singing task under both sparse and continuous scanning conditions. We noted significant variations in signal intensity between adjacent slices in our sparse acquisition, with (odd-numbered) slices acquired in the second half of each volume acquisition being of lower intensity and showing less reliable task-related activation, and thus requiring the removal of these slices prior to preprocessing. Edge artefacts, presumably due to movement, were observed in both acquisition types at a subthreshold level, although ventricular space artefacts were more apparent in the continuous data. However, statistical comparison revealed no significant differences in functional activation nor in motion correction parameters. Our results show that sparse imaging has the potential to introduce significant image artefacts affecting downstream analyses. While sparse sampling provides benefits that may be essential for certain studies (e.g., periods free from scanner noise), the technical requirements of such sequences should not be overlooked and inspection of raw data is essential. Our data also show that continuous imaging can be used for overt response auditory-verbal studies and may be of wider utility than previously appreciated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.