//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts









Loading...
Thus our work suggests that 1️⃣ cortical excitability inversely modulates fMRI connectivity 2️⃣ fMRI coupling rests on distributed, slow neuronal fluctuations (i.e. QPPs, CAPs, neuromodulation pulses..) 3️⃣cortical excitability gates local coupling by weakening or facilitating that slow synchrony 15/n
2mo
We believe our results may (partly) reframe how we interpret fMRI connectivity ▶️ fMRI connectivity ≠direct communication strength ▶️ fMRI connectivity is supported by distributed slow neuronal coupling ▶️ Hyper/hypoconnectivity (eg., in brain disorders) may reflect cortical hypo/hyperexcitability 16/n
So these results suggest that ▶️slow, shared LFP fluctuations provide a neuronal scaffold for fMRI connectivity ▶️cortical excitability gates how strongly regions participate on this process: shifts in cortical excitability weaken or facilitate this coupling, leading to hypo/hyperconnectivity 13/n
They may also have implications for brain stimulation. For example: if we increase excitability in a cortical area (with TMS) we may see a decrease in its fMRI connectivity. What we like here is that these are testable hypotheses: and so we will soon see if (any of) this holds in humans! 17/n
This seem to hold across different manipulations, and different cortical areas. Which raises the obvious question: what neural signals/mechanism track the observed fMRI connectivity changes? 10/n