Search

Resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs‐fMRI) offers the possibility to assess brain function independent of explicit tasks and individual performance. This absence of explicit stimuli in rs‐fMRI makes analyses more susceptible to nonneural signal fluctuations than task‐based fMRI. Data preprocessing is a critical procedure to minimise contamination by artefacts related to motion and physiology. We herein investigate the effects of different preprocessing strategies on the amplitude of low‐frequency fluctuations (ALFFs) and its fractional counterpart, fractional ALFF (fALFF). Sixteen artefact reduction schemes based on nuisance regression are applied to data from 82 subjects acquired at 1.5 T, 30 subjects at 3 T, and 23 subjects at 7 T, respectively. In addition, we examine test–retest variance and effects of bias correction. In total, 569 data sets are included in this study. Our results show that full artefact reduction reduced test–retest variance by up to 50%. Polynomial detrending of rs‐fMRI data has a positive effect on group‐level t‐values for ALFF but, importantly, a negative effect for fALFF. We show that the normalisation process intrinsic to fALFF calculation causes the observed reduction and introduce a novel measure for low‐frequency fluctuations denoted as high‐frequency ALFF (hfALFF). We demonstrate that hfALFF values are not affected by the negative detrending effects seen in fALFF data. Still, highest grey matter (GM) group‐level t‐values were obtained for fALFF data without detrending, even when compared to an exploratory detrending approach based on autocorrelation measures. From our results, we recommend the use of full nuisance regression including polynomial detrending in ALFF data, but to refrain from using polynomial detrending in fALFF data. Such optimised preprocessing increases GM group‐level t‐values by up to 60%.

Finding creative solutions to difficult problems is a fundamental aspect of human culture and a skill highly needed. However, the exact neural processes underlying creative problem solving remain unclear. Insightful problem solving tasks were shown to be a valid method for investigating one subcomponent of creativity: the Aha!‐moment. Finding insightful solutions during a remote associates task (RAT) was found to elicit specific cortical activity changes. Considering the strong affective components of Aha!‐moments, as manifested in the subjectively experienced feeling of relief following the sudden emergence of the solution of the problem without any conscious forewarning, we hypothesized the subcortical dopaminergic reward network to be critically engaged during Aha. To investigate those subcortical contributions to insight, we employed ultra‐high‐field 7 T fMRI during a German Version of the RAT. During this task, subjects were exposed to word triplets and instructed to find a solution word being associated with all the three given words. They were supposed to press a button as soon as they felt confident about their solution without further revision, allowing us to capture the exact event of Aha!‐moment. Besides the finding on cortical involvement of the left anterior middle temporal gyrus (aMTG), here we showed for the first time robust subcortical activity changes related to insightful problem solving in the bilateral thalamus, hippocampus, and the dopaminergic midbrain comprising ventral tegmental area (VTA), nucleus accumbens (NAcc), and caudate nucleus. These results shed new light on the affective neural mechanisms underlying insightful problem solving.

Objectives: Anticipatory processes prepare the organism for upcoming experiences. The aim of this study was to investigate neural responses related to anticipation and processing of painful stimuli occurring with different levels of uncertainty. Experimental design: Twenty-five participants (13 females) took part in an electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment at separate times. A visual cue announced the occurrence of an electrical painful or nonpainful stimulus, delivered with certainty or uncertainty (50% chance), at some point during the following 15 s. Principal observations: During the first 2 s of the anticipation phase, a strong effect of uncertainty was reflected in a pronounced frontal stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) and increased fMRI activation in higher visual processing areas. In the last 2 s before stimulus delivery, we observed stimulus-specific preparatory processes indicated by a centroparietal SPN and posterior insula activation that was most pronounced for the certain pain condition. Uncertain anticipation was associated with attentional control processes. During stimulation, the results revealed that unexpected painful stimuli produced the strongest activation in the affective pain processing network and a more pronounced offset-P2. Conclusions: Our results reflect that during early anticipation uncertainty is strongly associated with affective mechanisms and seems to be a more salient event compared to certain anticipation. During the last 2 s before stimulation, attentional control mechanisms are initiated related to the increased salience of uncertainty. Furthermore, stimulus-specific preparatory mechanisms during certain anticipation also shaped the response to stimulation, underlining the adaptive value of stimulus-targeted preparatory activity which is less likely when facing an uncertain event. Hum Brain Mapp 36:744–755, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.