Gunn, R. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2018

Accuracy and reliability of PBR28 specific binding estimated without the use of a reference region

[11C]PBR28 is a positron emission tomography radioligand used to estimate the expression of 18kDa translocator protein (TSPO). TSPO is expressed on glial cells and can function as a marker for immune activation. Since TSPO is expressed throughout the brain, no true reference region exists. For this reason, an arterial input function is required for accurate quantification of [11C]PBR28 binding and the most common outcome measure is the total distribution volume (VT). Notably, VT reflects both specific binding and non-displaceable binding (VND). Therefore, estimates of specific binding, such as binding potentials (e.g., BPND) and specific distribution volume (VS) should theoretically be more sensitive to underlying differences in TSPO expression. It is unknown, however, if unbiased and accurate estimates of these measures are obtainable for [11C]PBR28.\n\nThe Simultaneous Estimation (SIME) method uses time-activity-curves from multiple brain regions with the aim to obtain a brain-wide estimate of VND, which can subsequently be used to improve the estimation of BPND and VS. In this study we evaluated the accuracy of SIME-derived VND, and the reliability of resulting estimates of specific binding for [11C]PBR28, using a combination of simulation experiments and in vivo studies in healthy humans.\n\nThe simulation experiments showed that VND values estimated using SIME were both precise and accurate. Data from a pharmacological competition challenge showed that SIME provided VND values that were on average 19% lower than those obtained using the Lassen plot, but similar to values obtained using the Likelihood-Estimation of Occupancy technique. Test-retest data showed that SIME-derived VS values exhibited good reliability and precision, while larger variability was observed in SIME-derived BPND values.\n\nThe results support the use of SIME for quantifying specific binding of [11C]PB28, and suggest that VS can be used in preference to, or as a complement to the conventional outcome measure VT. Additional studies in patient cohorts are warranted.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2016

Estimating the implicit component of visuomotor rotation learning by constraining movement preparation time.

When sensory feedback is perturbed, accurate movement is restored by a combination of implicit processes and deliberate re-aiming to strategically compensate for errors. Here, we directly compare two methods used previously to dissociate implicit from explicit learning on a trial-by-trial basis: 1) asking participants to report the direction that they aim their movements, and contrasting this with the directions of the target and the movement that they actually produce, 2) manipulating movement preparation time. By instructing participants to re-aim without a sensory perturbation, we show that re-aiming is possible even with the shortest possible preparation times, particularly when targets are narrowly distributed. Nonetheless, re-aiming is effortful and comes at the cost of increased variability, so we tested whether constraining preparation time is sufficient to suppress strategic re-aiming during adaptation to visuomotor rotation with a broad target distribution. The rate and extent of error reduction under preparation time constraints were similar to estimates of implicit learning obtained from self-report without time pressure, suggesting that participants chose not to apply a re-aiming strategy to correct visual errors under time pressure. Surprisingly, participants who reported aiming directions showed less implicit learning according to an alternative measure, obtained during trials performed without visual feedback. This suggests that the process of reporting can affect the extent or persistence of implicit learning. The data extend existing evidence that restricting preparation time can suppress explicit re-aiming, and provide an estimate of implicit visuomotor rotation learning that does not require participants to report their aiming directions.\n\nNew and NoteworthyDuring sensorimotor adaptation, implicit, error-driven learning can be isolated from explicit strategy-driven re-aiming by subtracting self-reported aiming directions from movement directions, or by restricting movement preparation time. Here, we compared the two methods. Restricting preparation times did not eliminate re-aiming, but was sufficient to suppress reaiming during adaptation with widely-distributed targets. The self-report method produced a discrepancy in implicit learning estimated by subtracting aiming directions, and implicit learning measured in no-feedback trials.

neuroscience↗