However, I do agree that press titles stating that “40% of fMRI-cases were false” are wrong; yet, this is not our “headline result”. BOLD-fMRI remains the best method we have for studying the human brain. But we do question the uniform assumption of a generic response function across the cortex.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 7
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
In sum, your simulation illustrates that noise multiplies but uses non-realistic parameters, ignores the validation of an established hemodynamic model, several biological prerequisits, and all subsequent validation steps of our initial finding.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Finally, we offer a biological mechanism explaining the lack of CBF-changes using an independent measurement of OEF, during different brain states of rest and task activation. In short, our study goes well beyond Fig.3b.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Instead, your model output is implausible: Your noise-free correlation (post 9) assumes CBF changes way beyond physiological measurements (>5x higher than ever measured) showing that your model parameters are implausible.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Our result (Fig.3b) is not an arbitrary correlation between two random signals but a replication and validation of an established biophysical model of the BOLD signal. We did not report an arbitrary mismatch without biological plausibility.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Your error-plot (post 10) produces 40% error-voxels, but without any reference to brain space. Your error-voxels are randomly distributed, which ignores the spatial clustering we observe in our main and replication sample, which, in contrast, adds biological plausibility to our finding.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 2
📌 0
Both, your BOLD- and CBF-data are simulated by the same random term d_real. …i’m not an expert here, but both imaging signals have their own physiological signal structure, yet your error propagates stronger when based on the same structure as in your sim.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
MRI-data are noisy, but your simulation uses error-terms and SNRs beyond real data quality (i’d guess your CBF signal is around 5x weaker than imaging data, the real T2* changes are around 5x higher), so sure, you’ll easily (intentionally?) get more noise propagation.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 1
Hey Alex, here’s a short response as co-author of the original paper. Your simulation is statistically interesting, but ignores several physiological prerequisites that render it biologically implausible and therefore not related to our measured data.
07.01.2026 14:05
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
yes, that‘s exactly what i meant, high-frequency bands power is only a small portion of total activity, and, interestingly, the authors only find reduced HFB power in 2/8 regions related to DMN (fig.2)
17.12.2025 21:44
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Thanks Nicolas! unfortunately, very much we couldn’t cite (space limits 🫣), but right, that’s relevant work and we currently look into glucose (not oxygen like here) metabolism where it’ll better fit
16.12.2025 21:41
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Thanks Vadim! The electrophys. evidence i would know of (but you may have sth specific in mind?) are rather selective, showing reduced synchrony (not amplitude), reductions in certain frequency bands (not global) or from few neurons (vs entire systems)… we capture very broad and global reductions
16.12.2025 21:38
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
8:
Huge congrats to Samira on her epic PhD-work!
And thanks to our colleagues @gabocas.bsky.social, Beija, Jessica, and Christine,
my hosting institutions FAU @fau.de & TUM
and the support from @erc.europa.eu
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 4
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
7:
Samira, @samomat.bsky.social, has collated all data and analysis code here:
data: openneuro.org/datasets/ds0...
code: github.com/Neuroenerget...
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 4
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
6:
Still, varying hemodynamic responses may offer new insights:
-Does CBF regulation only kick in after the oxygen buffer is used?
-Does OEF regulation indicate different signaling strategies or cell type metabolism?
- Does oxygen availability indicate disease susceptibility?
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
5:
BOLD-fMRI remains the most effective method for studying human brain activity.
Yet, we might have to reconsider the regional interpretation of BOLD-signal changes in relation to neuronal activity.
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
4:
In summary, we identified varying oxygen extraction as a novel hemodynamic response type to neuronal activity, leading to paradoxically inverse BOLD signal responses, particularly in the Default Mode Network.
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 3
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
3:
Most voxels in the Default Mode Network (DMN) exhibited a paradoxical negative BOLD response to increased metabolism due to higher oxygen extraction instead of decreased blood flow.
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 2
📌 0
Hemodynamic response in the brain
2:
We found inconsistent hemodynamic responses via blood flow (CBF) across the cortex and even within the same voxels, depending on task type and baseline oxygen extraction fraction (OEF).
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 3
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
Multiparametric, quantitative fMRI
1:
The BOLD signal is a complex representation of various hemodynamic processes. We used quantitative fMRI to measure all hemodynamic factors contributing to positive and negative BOLD signal changes.
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
BOLD signal changes can oppose oxygen metabolism across the human cortex, Nature Neuroscience
fMRI signals “up,” but neural metabolism might be going “down.”
In our @natneuro.nature.com paper, we demonstrate that about 40% of voxels with robust BOLD responses exhibit opposite oxygen metabolism, revealing two distinct hemodynamic modes.
rdcu.be/eUPO8
funds @erc.europa.eu
#neuroskyence 🧵:
16.12.2025 15:43
👍 176
🔁 80
💬 4
📌 8
What started as a spinoff project for Madeleine's PhD became one of the most striking indications that glucose levels play an important role in regulating everyday stress responses. This shows the potential of biosensors to evaluate whether metabolism alters stress reactivity #neuroskyence 🩺
10.12.2025 18:23
👍 48
🔁 6
💬 2
📌 0
What if complex life began when evolution hit a search bottleneck?
Across 6,500+ species, 🧬 length follow a scale-invariant law. At eukaryote origins, proteins plateau while 🧬 keep growing as noncoding regulatory DNA. Phase transition?
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
👉 manlius.substack.com
08.12.2025 09:49
👍 41
🔁 14
💬 0
📌 1
Cover for the book "Creating Communication and Media Research Labs: A Blueprint for Success". Edited by Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, and Patric R. Spence. Published by Palgrave Pivot.
🧵 What does it take to build a small, scrappy, and successful communication neuroscience lab? Our lab, @gongxuanjun.bsky.social, @rachaelkee.bsky.social, Allyson Snyder, Ziyu Zhao, and I put out heads together to answer this question. Here's what we came up with: link.springer.com/chapter/10.1...
02.11.2025 16:21
👍 10
🔁 5
💬 1
📌 0
NEUROSONICS
Hello! It has been a while, but for the Hector Fellow Academy I created a small project at the interface of neuroscience and music. In short, it is like a neuro-jukebox of projects of friends and colleagues integrating music and art. I thought it would be nice to share here
cng-lab.github.io/kiosk
19.09.2025 09:02
👍 11
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0