ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Limitations of 2-dimensional line-scan MRI for directly measuring neural activity.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Suppression of Oscillation and Ghosting in RF-Spoiled Gradient-Echo-Based Dynamic Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
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
A 2D-line-scan MRI sequence has been reported to directly measure neural responses to stimuli (the "DIANA response"). Attempts to replicate the DIANA response have failed, even with higher field strength and more repetitions. Part of this discrepancy is likely due to a limited understanding of how physiological noise manifests in 2D-line-scan acquisition sequences. Specifically, it is unclear what the consequences are of breaking the assumption that the imaging substrate remains constant between each line acquisition. To answer this question, we collected 2D-line-scan data at 3T from human subjects viewing a blank screen. We found temporal fluctuations in the reconstructed time series that could easily be confused with neural responses to stimuli. These fluctuations were present both in the head and in the surrounding empty volume along the span of the phase-encoding direction from the head. The timing of these fluctuations varied systematically and smoothly along the phase-encoding direction. These artifacts are similar to well-known phase-encoding artifacts in EPI and GRE images, but are exacerbated due to longer acquisition times in the 2D-line-scan sequence (seconds vs. milliseconds). We explain these artifacts with a model that accounts for the acquisition sequence and incorporates time-varying contrast fluctuations and movement in the imaging substrate. Using the model, we quantify the amount of cortical- and scan-averaging one might need to reliably distinguish a DIANA response from noise, and show that navigator echoes might help in reducing phase-encode noise in the 2D-line-scan sequence.
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.