Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM (2007)
| Venue: | NeuroImage |
| Citations: | 11 - 1 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Stephan07comparinghemodynamic,
author = {Klaas Enno Stephan and Nikolaus Weiskopf and Peter M. Drysdale and Peter A. Robinson and Karl J. Friston A},
title = {Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2007},
pages = {387--401}
}
Bookmark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
OpenURL
Abstract
The classical model of blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses by Buxton et al. [Buxton, R.B., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., 1998. Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: the Balloon model. Magn. Reson. Med. 39, 855–864] has been very important in providing a biophysically plausible framework for explaining different aspects of hemodynamic responses. It also plays an important role in the hemodynamic forward model for dynamic causal modeling (DCM) of fMRI data. A recent study by Obata et al. [Obata, T., Liu, T.T., Miller, K.L., Luh, W.M., Wong, E.C., Frank, L.R., Buxton, R.B., 2004. Discrepancies between BOLD and flow dynamics in primary and supplementary motor areas: application of the Balloon model to the interpretation of BOLD transients. NeuroImage 21, 144–153] linearized the BOLD signal equation and suggested a revised form for the model coefficients. In this paper, we show that the classical and revised models are special
