|Szameitat, André J.; Shen, Shan; Sterr, Annette (31. July 2009): The functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) procedure as experienced by healthy participants and stroke patients – A pilot study. In: BMC Medical Imaging, Vol. 9, No. 14|
Background: An important aspect in functional imaging research employing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is how participants perceive the MRI scanning itself. For instance, the knowledge of how (un)comfortable MRI scanning is perceived may help institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics committees to decide on the approval of a study, or researchers to design their experiments. Methods: We provide empirical data from our lab gained from 70 neurologically healthy mainly student subjects and from 22 mainly elderly patients suffering from motor deficits after brain damage. All participants took part in various basic research fMRI studies using a 3T MRI scanner. Directly after the scanning, all participants completed a questionnaire assessing their experience with the fMRI procedure. Results: 87.2% of the healthy subjects and 77.3% of the patients rated the MRI procedure as acceptable to comfortable. In healthy subjects, males found the procedure more comfortable, while the opposite was true for patients. 12.1% of healthy subjects considered scanning durations between 30 and 60 min as too long, while no patient considered their 30 min scanning interval as too long. 93.4% of the healthy subjects would like to participate in an fMRI study again, with a significantly lower rate for the subjects who considered the scanning as too long. Further factors, such as inclusion of a diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) scan, age, and study duration had no effect on the questionnaire responses. Of the few negative comments, the main issues were noise, the restriction to keep still for the whole time, and occasional feelings of dizziness. Conclusion: MRI scanning in the basic research setting is an acceptable procedure for elderly and patient participants as well as young healthy subjects.
Psychology and Education Science > Department for Psychology > Clinical Psychology
|Subjects:||600 Technology > 610 Medicine and health|
|Deposited On:||08. Nov 2010 15:01|
|Last Modified:||29. Apr 2016 09:07|
1. Marshall J, Martin T, Downie J, Malisza K: A comprehensive analysis of MRI research risks: in support of full disclosure. Can J Neurol Sci 2007, 34:11-17.
2. Sparrow P, Plein S, Jones TR, Thorley PJ, Hale C, Sivananthan MU: Tolerance of MRI vs. SPECT myocardial perfusion studies – a patient survey. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 19:410-416.
3. Eshed I, Althoff CE, Hamm B, Hermann KG: Claustrophobia and premature termination of magnetic resonance imaging examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 26:401-404.
4. Wollman DE, Beeri MS, Weinberger M, Cheng H, Silverman JM, Prohovnik I: Tolerance of MRI procedures by the oldest old. Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 22:1299-1304.
5. Thorp D, Owens RG, Whitehouse G, Dewey ME: Subjective experiences of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 1990, 41:276-278.
6. MacKenzie R, Sims C, Owens RG, Dixon AK: Patients' perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 1995, 50:137-143.
7. Flaherty JA, Hoskinson K: Emotional distress during magnetic resonance imaging. N Engl J Med 1989, 320:467-468.
8. Dantendorfer K, Amering M, Bankier A, Helbich T, Prayer D, Youssefzadeh S, Alexandrowicz R, Imhof H, Katschnig H: A study of the effects of patient anxiety, perceptions and equipment on motion artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1997, 15:301-306.
9. Tornqvist E, Mansson A, Larsson EM, Hallstrom I: It's like being in another world – patients' lived experience of magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Nurs 2006, 15:954-961.
10. Melendez JC, McCrank E: Anxiety-related reactions associated with magnetic resonance imaging examinations. JAMA 1993, 270:745-747.
11. Katz RC, Wilson L, Frazer N: Anxiety and its determinants in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1994, 25:131-134.
12. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF: Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 55,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 26:1322-1327.
13. Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Bradley WG, Felmlee JP, Froelich JW, Kaminski EM, Keeler EK, Lester JW, et al.: American College of Radiology White Paper on MR Safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:1335-1347.
14. Shen S, Sterr A, Szameitat A: A template effect study on voxelbased morphometry in statistic parametric mapping. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2005, 3:3051-3054.
15. Shen S, Szameitat AJ, Sterr A: VBM lesion detection depends on the normalization template: a study using simulated atrophy. Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 25:1385-1396.
16. Szameitat AJ, Shen S, Sterr A: Motor imagery of complex everyday movements. An fMRI study. NeuroImage 2007, 34:702-713.
17. Szameitat AJ, Shen S, Sterr A: Effector-dependent activity in the left dorsal premotor cortex in motor imagery. Eur J Neurosci 2007, 26:3303-3308.
18. Sarji SA, Abdullah BJ, Kumar G, Tan AH, Narayanan P: Failed magnetic resonance imaging examinations due to claustrophobia. Australas Radiol 1998, 42:293-295.
19. Tschirch FT, Gopfert K, Frohlich JM, Brunner G, Weishaupt D: Lowdose intranasal versus oral midazolam for routine body MRI of claustrophobic patients. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:1403-1410.
20. Tschirch FT, Suter K, Froehlich JM, Studler U, Nidecker A, Eckhardt B, Beranek-Chiu J, Surber C, Weishaupt D: Multicenter trial: comparison of two different formulations and application systems of low-dose nasal midazolam for routine magnetic resonance imaging of claustrophobic patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008, 28:866-872.
21. Thorpe S, Salkovskis PM, Dittner A: Claustrophobia in MRI: the role of cognitions. Magn Reson Imaging 2008, 26:1081-1088.
22. Bangard C, Paszek J, Berg F, Eyl G, Kessler J, Lackner K, Gossmann A: MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets. Eur J Radiol 2007, 64:152-157.
23. McGlynn FD, Smitherman TA, Hammel JC, Lazarte AA: Component fears of claustrophobia associated with mock magnetic resonance imaging. J Anxiety Disord 2007, 21:367-380.
24. Kilborn LC, Labbe EE: Magnetic resonance imaging scanning procedures: development of phobic response during scan and at one-month follow-up. J Behav Med 1990, 13:391-401.
25. Avrahami E: Panic attacks during MR imaging: treatment with i.v. diazepam. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990, 11:833-835.
26. Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA: Adult claustrophobia, anxiety and sedation in MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 1997, 15:51-54.
27. Radomsky AS, Rachman S, Thordarson DS, McIsaac HK, Teachman BA: The Claustrophobia Questionnaire. J Anxiety Disord 2001, 15:287-297.
28. Heuck A, Bonel H, Huber A, Muller-Lisse GU, Sittek H, Reiser M: Patient acceptance of high-field whole-body MR systems, open MR-systems and dedicated MR systems for the extremities [German]. Radiologe 1997, 37:778-784.