2002
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0973
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Use of Caffeine as a Contrast Booster for BOLD fMRI Studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

9
129
5

Year Published

2003
2003
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 157 publications
(143 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
9
129
5
Order By: Relevance
“…However, previous studies have shown that preconstriction of the cerebral vasculature can enhance the BOLD response evoked by somatosensory stimulation (Mulderink et al . 2002). Interestingly, it has been shown that SHRs display increased vertebrobasilar artery remodeling and constriction (Cates et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, previous studies have shown that preconstriction of the cerebral vasculature can enhance the BOLD response evoked by somatosensory stimulation (Mulderink et al . 2002). Interestingly, it has been shown that SHRs display increased vertebrobasilar artery remodeling and constriction (Cates et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, differences in cardiac and respiratory induced noise and true differences in the BOLD signal e.g. due to different levels of hormones or drugs such as caffeine (Mulderink et al, 2002) may also contribute to the inter-session variance in fMRI.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proportional hypothesis states that the stimulus-evoked fMRI change is proportional to the basal CBF or tissue oxygenation, resulting in a constant relative CBF or BOLD change (Cohen et al, 2002;Shimosegawa et al, 1995). Recently, models describing a more complex dependence of BOLD on baseline CBF (Mulderink et al, 2002) and a "feed-forward" mechanism for neurovascular coupling (Uludag et al, 2003) have been proposed to account for the confounding effects of global CBF and BOLD signals on the stimulus-evoked fMRI responses. However, these previous studies measured only relative BOLD (Cohen et al, 2002;Friston et al, 1990;Ramsay et al, 1993;Shimosegawa et al, 1995) and/or relative CBF (Hoge et al, 1999;Li et al, 2000) changes, and thus their conclusions were indirect.…”
Section: Additive Versus Proportional Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%