fMRI_Data_From_A_Finger_Tapping_Run_Subject_01-20

The data were acquired from a finger tapping run in an rtfMRI experiment, which consisted of eight on-going runs. Twenty volunteers (age 22.3 ± 1.6, 8 females) participated in the experiment, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning in Beijing Normal University; all of the subjects signed informed consent prior to scanning. The run, which lasted 4.5 min, consisted of five rest blocks and four task blocks, of which each block lasted 30 s. During the rest blocks, a text cue “REST” was shown in the center of the screen and the subjects were instructed to take a rest. In the task blocks, a text cue “PUSH” was shown, and the subjects were instructed to tap their right-hand fingers

Construction of simulation data.

<p>The source image (<b>F</b>) was the first image in the real data, which was zoomed 0.7 times in advance. The reference image (<b>G</b>) was the source image transformed using the given parameters (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103302#pone-0103302-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>).</p

Activation coverage rate and activation center distance in different brain regions.

<p>Activation coverage rate and activation center distance in different brain regions.</p

The negative effects of inter-run motion accumulation avoided using online spatial normalization.

<p>The images were obtained from one subject’s first image in each of eight on-going runs of an rtfMRI experiment, which lasted approximately 90 mins. <b>A.</b> The same slices of source images in different runs showed that the inter-run motion accumulated, and the image in the last run was different from the image in the first run by almost one slice. <b>B.</b> The corresponding slices in the normalized images using offline spatial normalization. The normalization parameters were estimated only in the first run, which simulated the processes of the previous spatial normalization methods <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103302#pone.0103302-Lee1" target="_blank">[25]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103302#pone.0103302-Gao1" target="_blank">[26]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0103302#pone.0103302-Desmond1" target="_blank">[42]</a>. It was evident that the inter-run motion negatively affected the accuracy of the normalized images in the subsequent runs. <b>C.</b> The corresponding slices in the normalized images by online spatial normalization using the parameters estimated in each run. The inter-run motion was effectively avoided, and the normalized images were nearly the same.</p

The workflow of spatial normalization (left) and advanced affine registration (right).

<p>The image registration includes affine registration (AFR) and nonlinear registration (NLR), which are used to estimate the optimal normalization parameters. The image transformation is then used to transform the source images to a stereotactic space using the estimated parameters; tri-linear interpolation is used in this study. The PA-GN(β) AFR method is advanced based on traditional AFR, in which the PA provides a better initial estimate for GN with the self-adaptive β parameter for the iteration step adjustment.</p

Effect of galnon on retrieval of morphine-induced CPP.

<p>A, Behavioral procedure for injection time points in retrieval process. Upward arrows indicate galnon or saline injection. B, Galnon did not affect retrieval process of morphine-induced CPP. * <i>p</i><0.05 vs saline-saline group in each test.</p

Simulation: convergence condition (left) and the required iteration number (right).

<p>(A) AFR without improvements; (B) AFR with β parameter only; (C) AFR with PA only; (D) PA-GN(β) AFR. The mean iteration number using the traditional AFR was 14.05±1.24, while that using the PA-GN(β) AFR was 9.50±0.50¸ which is approximately two-thirds of the traditional AFR requirement. Each dot represented a subject in the right figure, and there were fourteen dots overlapping with the six dots, as shown.</p

Effect of galnon on acquisition of morphine-induced CPP.

<p>A, 10/kg galnon injection impaired the locomotor activity. B, Galnon itself had no effects of CPP and CPA. C, Behavioral procedure for injection time points in acquisition process. Upward arrows indicate galnon or saline injection. D, The acquisition process of morphine-induced CPP did not be influenced by galnon. ^@<i>p</i><0.05 vs the other groups; * <i>p</i><0.05 vs saline-saline group in each test.</p

Accurary and runtime of online spatial normalization with different cutoff frequencies.

<p>*The MSE using offline spatial normalization with default <i>L_c</i> of 25 mm was 0.2624±0.0135.</p

Effect of galnon on consolidation of morphine-induced CPP.

<p>A, Behavioral procedure for injection time points in consolidation process. Upward arrows indicates galnon or saline injection. B, Galnon enhanced the consolidation process of morphine-induced CPP. C, Behavioral procedure for time points of locomotor activity tests after post-training injection of 10 mg/kg galnon. Down arrows indicate galnon or saline injection. D, The locomotor activity in two training days did not be influenced by post-training injection of 10 mg/kg galnon. ^∧<i>p</i><0.05 vs morphine-saline group; * <i>p</i><0.05 vs saline-saline group in each test.</p