ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Awake rodent fMRI: Gradient-echo echo planar imaging versus compressed-sensing fast low-angle shot.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- Review
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
Abstract
Awake rodent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is increasingly becoming a reliable neuroimaging technique to study neuronal activity at both the whole-brain and high-resolution laminar scales. Prior studies have focused on developing acclimation protocols, experimental paradigms, and hardware to optimize outcomes. However, little effort has been made to address the impact of pulse sequence selection on detecting brain activation in awake fMRI experiments. In the current study, we compare gradient-echo echo planar imaging (GE-EPI) and compressed-sensing fast low-angle shot (CS-FLASH) sequences with cerebral blood volume-weighted (CBVw) contrast enhancement to investigate their sensitivity to hemodynamic activity in the olfactory bulb of awake rodents. Compared with GE-EPI, CS-FLASH had comparable motion parameters but was more sensitive to large motions, often resulting in corruption of the image quality. The use of framewise displacement as a motion censoring technique may over censor the data, requiring alternative approaches, such as spatial correlation censoring. CS-FLASH images were qualitatively sharper than GE-EPI; however, the contrast-to-noise ratio for odor activation was consistently greater for GE-EPI than for CS-FLASH that cannot be explained by olfactory adaptation alone. The activation maps of CS-FLASH to four different odors showed spatially unique patterns consistent with GE-EPI, but with lower z-scores or detection sensitivity. Activation maps were consistent with previously established histological findings. Additionally, odor-evoked laminar activation was greatest in the superficial layers that decreased with laminar depth, consistent with prior findings. We conclude that CS-FLASH produces sharper images with equivalent spatial activation maps to GE-EPI, albeit with lower statistical strength and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and without being prohibited by motion-related image distortion.
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.