Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles

Linear Systems Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Human V1

Geoffrey M. Boynton, Stephen A. Engel, Gary H. Glover and David J. Heeger
Journal of Neuroscience 1 July 1996, 16 (13) 4207-4221; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-13-04207.1996
Geoffrey M. Boynton
1Departments of Psychology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen A. Engel
1Departments of Psychology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary H. Glover
2Diagnostic Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Heeger
1Departments of Psychology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Diagram of the linear transform model. The output of the Retinal-V1 Pathway (Neural Response) is a nonlinear function of stimulus–contrast. fMRI signal, mediated byHemodynamics, is a linear transform of neural activity. That is, fMRI signal is proportional to the local average neural activity, averaged over a small region of the brain and averaged over a period of time. Noise might be introduced at each stage of the process, but the effects of these individual noises on the fMRI Response can be summarized by a single noise source.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Schematic of visual stimuli used in the experiments. A, One frame of the periodic stimulus consisted of vertical bars of checkerboard patternsalternating with vertical bars of uniform gray(mean). Over time, the checkerboard patterns flickered (contrast reversing with a flicker rate of 8 Hz), and the bars drifted slowly leftward. B, The time course of a single pixel of the periodic stimulus as the bars drifted. C, The time course of pixels for the pulse stimulus. Each stimulus cycle began by displaying a full-field flickering checkerboard pattern (contrast reversing at 8 Hz) for a period of time (the pulse duration). Each stimulus cycle was completed by replacing the checkerboard with uniform gray for 24 sec.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Analysis of data for periodic stimuli.A, Sequence of fMR images. B, Time course of response at a single pixel (dashed curve) superimposed with the best-fitting sinusoid. C, Aligned anatomical image with pixels in the calcarine sulcus highlighted. D, Mean and SE of the response amplitudes of the selected pixels.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    fMRI responses to pulse stimuli. Eachcurve is the mean time course of the fMRI response (pixel intensity) averaged across cycle repetitions and averaged across all pixels in the calcarine sulcus. Each panel shows data for a different pulse duration. Different curves within a panel correspond to different contrasts. The stimulus time course also is depicted in each panel. The fMRI responses increase with stimulus contrast, and the fMRI responses are blurred and delayed with respect to the time course of the stimulus. Error bars represent 1 SE.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Time–contrast separability test using pulse stimuli. Data in each panel are scaled copies of data in the corresponding panel of Figure 6. Error bars represent 1 SE of the scaled data. The resulting scaled data align without significant systematic error, consistent with time–contrast separability. The first principal components (solid curves) account for 86.81% of the variance in the data.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    fMRI response amplitudes for periodic stimuli as a function of stimulus contrast and temporal period for both subjects.Amplitudes are in pixel intensity units, andContrast is plotted on a logarithmic scale. Data points are mean response amplitudes (averaged over the calcarine sulcus). Error bars represent 1 SE of the mean. fMRI response amplitude increases monotonically with stimulus contrast, and it decreases as theTemporal Period shortens.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    Time–contrast separability test using periodic stimuli for both subjects. Each data set is a scaled copy of the corresponding data from Figure 6, after compensating for the noise (see text). Error bars represent 1 SE of the scaled data. The curves align without significant systematic error, consistent with separability. The first principal components (solid curves) account for 99.64 and 99.01% of the variance in the data for subjects gmb andsae, respectively.

  • Fig. 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8.

    fMRI responses from shorter pulses can predict the responses to longer pulses. The four principal component curves (corresponding to pulse durations of 3, 6, 12, and 24 sec) from Figure5 were used to make six predictions. The predictions are generally consistent with the linear transform model. However, the responses to the shortest (3 sec) pulse tend to overestimate slightly the responses to the longer pulses.

  • Fig. 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 9.

    Noise analysis. A, fMRI response amplitudes for periodic stimuli as a function of stimulusContrast, stimulus Temporal Period, andAnalysis Period. Each panel corresponds to a different analysis period. Different curves correspond to different stimulus temporal periods. Error bars represent 1 SE. Response amplitude increases with Contrast only when the Analysis Period is the same as the stimulus Temporal Period. The other curves are measurements of the noise. The noise curves are flat, demonstrating that the noise is independent of both stimulus contrast and stimulus temporal period. B, Noise amplitudes for all periodic stimulus conditions and for all possible analysis periods. The noise is broad-band; that is, the noise amplitudes are significantly nonzero for each of the analysis periods. The solid curve, drawn for comparison, is the temporal fMRI frequency–response function, that is, the amplitude of the Fourier transform of the temporal fMRI impulse–response function (from Fig. 13).

  • Fig. 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 10.

    Model fit to the pulse data set for subjectgmb. The model predictions and corresponding data points were shifted vertically so that the predicted responses asymptote at zero. The best-fitting model parameters do not vary greatly between subjects. The model accounts for 76.98% of the variance in the data.

  • Fig. 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 11.

    Model fit to the pulse data set for subjectsae. The model accounts for 62.49% of the variance in the data.

  • Fig. 12.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 12.

    Model fit to the periodic data sets for both subjects. Best-fitting model parameters do not vary greatly between subjects. The model accounts for 99.56 and 98.76% of the variance for subjects gmb and sae, respectively.

  • Fig. 13.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 13.

    Estimated impulse response (Time, top)and contrast response (Contrast, bottom) functions for subjects gmb (left) and sae (right). The functions are plotted using the model parameter values fit to the pulsed (thin line) and periodic (thick line) data sets.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 16 (13)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 16, Issue 13
1 Jul 1996
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Linear Systems Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Human V1
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Linear Systems Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Human V1
Geoffrey M. Boynton, Stephen A. Engel, Gary H. Glover, David J. Heeger
Journal of Neuroscience 1 July 1996, 16 (13) 4207-4221; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-13-04207.1996

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Linear Systems Analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Human V1
Geoffrey M. Boynton, Stephen A. Engel, Gary H. Glover, David J. Heeger
Journal of Neuroscience 1 July 1996, 16 (13) 4207-4221; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-13-04207.1996
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • APPENDIX
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • functional MRI
  • linear systems analysis
  • contrast perception
  • temporal impulse–response function
  • hemodynamics
  • calcarine sulcus

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.