Novel Applications & Considerations of Neurocognitive Research using Functional

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

Breya Walker, B.A.Department of Psychology

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital P.O.E. Talk July 28th 2015

What is fMRI?• Indirect measure of cognitive functioning

– A task is given that requires a response– neuronal activation increased regional oxygen

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/apr/02/brain-graphics-imaging-map/

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/penhune/photos-experiments.html

fMRI is advantageous

• Non-invasive• No exposure to radiation • Identify neural networks associated with cognition• Clarify the impact of disease and treatment on brain

development• Measure brain changes in response to intervention

http://www.tru.ca/distance/partnerships/current-partners/about-camrt.html

Measuring working memory with fMRI

Working memory

• Holding, processing, and manipulating new information (e.g. mental sketchpad)

• Predict functional outcomes (e.g., reading, math) • Well-defined neuroanatomical network • Developmental perspective vulnerable in children with

early brain insult

http://usablealgebra.landmark.edu/instructor-training/working-memory-attention-executive-function/

Measuring working memory

• Performance-based measures• Rater-based measures

BUT working memory can be difficult to measure in research settings, including fMRI

Considerations for fMRI research

Task Design Response modality Vision/motor impairment

Age/developmental limitations

Capability to complete task

Movement

Healthy Adults 18-30 years old (N=25)  Total  N = 25Gender (% male) 48

Race (% Caucasian) 96

Age at assessment 25.42 ± 3.71

Full Scale IQ 120.12 ± 7.32

• Exclusions – History of CNS injury/disease– Cognitive limitations (self-report history of special education) – Substance use– MR compatibility issues

Self ordered search (SOS) task

Adopted: Conklin INS presentation 2012

First attempt

Adapted: Conklin 2012

Second attempt

Self ordered search (SOS) task

fMRI of Working Memory

• Aim: Investigate the utility of a self-ordered search task– Effect of task difficulty?– Is performance reliable? – Expected pattern of brain activation?

• Implications– Establish neural activation patterns for comparison with patient

populations– Establish performance reliability inside and outside scanner

Effect of task difficulty

N = 25 18-30 years of age

5 8 110

20

40

60

80

100

120

Difficulty Level

Mea

n Re

actio

n Ti

me

(s)

5 8 110

0.050.1

0.150.2

0.250.3

0.350.4

0.450.5

Difficulty Level

Mea

n Er

ror R

ate

(E)

Variability in Reaction Time

Error rates inside≠ Error rates outside

http://shapeup.org/assessing-childhood-obesity/http://www.tru.ca/distance/partnerships/current-partners/about-camrt.html

fMRI results – SOS task

LEFT RIGHT

Posterior

Anterior

fMRI results – SOS task

N-B

ack

SOS-

O

LEFT RIGHT

fMRI results

Verbal SOSObject SOS

LEFT RIGHT

Effect of task difficulty? YESo Increased difficulty more errors, slower reaction time

Is performance reliable? NOo Inconsistent performance inside and outside scanner

Pattern of neural activation? YESo Neural activation in well-defined brain regions

SOS task is useful in MR but modification is needed Application of laterality findings (e.g., surgical planning)

Aim: Investigate the utility of the SOS task

Study Limitations

Sample representativeness

  Total  N = 25Gender (% male) 48

Race (% Caucasian) 96

Age at assessment 25.42 ± 3.71

Full Scale IQ 120.12 ± 7.32

Future Directions

Developmental & clinical application

Response modification

Quantify impact of treatment

Measure outcome of cognitive intervention

Research Team

Department of Psychology Lisa Jacola, PhD Heather Conklin, PhD Jason Ashford, MS, CCRP

Division of Radiological Sciences Matt Scoggins, PhD Robert Ogg, PhD

POE Program Dr. Gronemeyer and James Marmion