Improving Clinical fMRI: Better Paradigms or Higher Field Strength?

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. O'Shea J,
   2. Boudrias MH,
   3. Stagg CJ,
   4. et al

   . Predicting behavioural response to TDCS in chronic motor stroke. Neuroimage 2013;pii:S1053–8119(13)00598–603
2. 2.↵
   1. Szaflarski JP,
   2. Allendorfer JB,
   3. Banks C,
   4. et al

   . Recovered vs. not-recovered from post-stroke aphasia: the contributions from the dominant and non-dominant hemispheres. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013;31:347–60

   PubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Zacà D,
   2. Jarso S,
   3. Pillai JJ

   . Role of semantic paradigms for optimization of language mapping in clinical fMRI studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1963–68
4. 4.↵
   1. Beisteiner R,
   2. Robinson S,
   3. Wurnig M,
   4. et al

   . Clinical fMRI: evidence for a 7 T benefit over 3 T. Neuroimage 2011;57:1015–21

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Gartus A,
   2. Foki T,
   3. Geissler A,
   4. et al

   . Improvement of clinical language localization with an overt semantic and syntactic language functional MR imaging paradigm. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1977–85

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Wurnig MC,
   2. Rath J,
   3. Klinger N,
   4. et al

   . Variability of clinical functional MR imaging results: a multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:521–31

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science