Simple fMRI Postprocessing Suffices for Normal Clinical Practice

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 1.
Overlapping maps in the left finger-tapping paradigm. The first line of images is the Tth Neuro3D map, showing activation in the precentral area related to the primary motor cortex of the left hand (right side), in the left supplementary motor area, and smaller contralateral activation in the precentral primary motor cortex and premotor area. In the second line, The SPM map shows the same areas of activation.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 2.
Partially overlapping maps in the orolingual motor task. In the first line of images, the Tth Neuro3D map shows bilateral activation in the precentral area related to the primary motor cortex, in the premotor cortex, in the supplementary motor area, and in the postcentral bilateral area. In the SPM map (second line), the activation areas are smaller. Comparison between Tmax Neuro3D (third line) and SPM improves the classification to “overlapping.”

Table 1:

Tth and Tmax for motor tasks: mean and range

Orolingual		Right Hand		Left Hand		Right Foot		Left Foot
Tth	Tmax	Tth	Tmax	Tth	Tmax	Tth	Tmax	Tth	Tmax
4.5	10.0	6.2	12.1	6.2	13.3	4.7	7.6	4.1	5.9
0.1–6.6	6.4–12.2	5.3–6.6	8.0–17.3	5.3–6.5	9.7–17.7	2.6–6.1	3.4–11.9	1.6–6.0	2.6–8.0

Table 2:

Comparison between Neuro3D and SPM analysis in motor paradigm experiments

		Right Hand	Left Hand	Right Foot	Left Foot	Orolng	Total
	Overl	2 (33.3%)	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	0 (0%)	1 (16.7%)	9 (30%)
Tth	Part.overl	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (100%)	2 (33.3%)	21 (70%)
	Not overl	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
	Not pres	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	1 (16.7%)	4 (66.6%)	1 (16.7%)	12 (40%)
Noise	Pres. not inter	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	5 (83.3%)	1 (16.7%)	3 (50%)	15 (50%)
	Inter	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (16.7%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (10%)
	Overl	5 (83.3%)	5 (83.3%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.3%)	23 (76.6%)
Tmax	Part.overl	1 (16.7%)	1 (16.7%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)	7 (23.3%)
	Not overl	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
	SPM	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Cluster size	Neuro3D	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.3%)	5 (83.3%)	22 (73.3%)
	Equal	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)	1 (16.7%)	8 (26.7%)
	SPM	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (100%)	6 (100%)	23 (76.6%)
Preference	Neuro3D	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (16.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.3%)
	Equal	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	1 (16.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (20.1%)

Note:—inter indicates interfering; overl, overlapping; part.overl, partially overlapping; pres, present; orolng, orolingual.

Table 4:

Comparison between Neuro3D and SPM analysis in language paradigm experiments

		Verbal Fluency (%)	Semantic Judgment (%)	Oral Comprehension (%)	Total (%)
	Overl	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	2 (18.2)	4 (12.1)
Tth	Part.overl	6 (54.5)	9 (81.8)	9 (81.8)	24 (72.7)
	Not overl	3 (27.3)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	5 (15.2)
	Not pres	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	4 (36.4)	6 (18.2)
Noise	Pres.not inter	6 (54.5)	7 (63.6)	7 (63.6)	20 (60.6)
	Interfere	4 (36.4)	3 (27.3)	0 (0)	7 (21.2)
	Overl	5 (45.4)	5 (45.4)	6 (54.5)	16 (48.5)
Tmax	Part.overl	3 (27.3)	4 (36.4)	5 (45.4)	12 (36.4)
	Not overl	3 (27.3)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	5 (15.1)
	SPM	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Cluster size	Neuro3D	10 (90.9)	10 (90.9)	10 (90.9)	30 (90.9)
	Equal	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	3 (9.1)
	SPM	10 (90.9)	10 (90.9)	8 (72.7)	28 (84.8)
Preference	Neuro3D	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (9.1)	1 (3.1)
	Equal	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	2 (18.2)	4 (12.1)