Within-Session and Between-Session Reproducibility of Cerebral Sensorimotor Activation: A Test–Retest Effect Evidenced with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to assess the reproducibility of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain activation signals in a sensorimotor task in healthy subjects. Because random or systematic changes are likely to happen when movements are repeated over time, the authors searched for time-dependent changes in the fMRI signal intensity and the extent of activation within and between sessions. Reproducibility was studied on a sensorimotor task called “the active task” that includes a motor output and a sensory feedback, and also on a sensory stimulation called “the passive task” that assessed the sensory input alone. The active task consisted of flexion and extension of the right hand. The subjects had performed it several times before fMRI scanning so that it was well learned. The passive task consisted of a calibrated passive flexion and extension of the right wrist. Tasks were 1 Hz-paced. The control state was rest. Subjects naïve to the MRI environment and non–MRI-naïve subjects were studied. Twelve MRI-naïve subjects underwent 3 fMRI sessions separated by 5 hours and 49 days, respectively. During MRI scanning, they performed the active task. Six MRI-naïve subjects underwent 2 fMRI sessions with the passive task 1 month apart. Three non–MRI-naïve subjects performed twice an active 2-Hz self-paced task. The data were analyzed with SPM96 software. For within-session comparison, for active or passive tasks, good reproducibility of fMRI signal activation was found within a session (intra-and interrun reproducibility) whether it was the first, second, or third session. Therefore, no within-session habituation was found with a passive or a well-learned active task. For between-session comparison, for MRI-naïve or non–MRI-naïve subjects, and with the active or the passive task, activation was increased in the contralateral premotor cortex and in ispsilateral anterior cerebellar cortex but was decreased in the primary sensorimotor cortex, parietal cortex, and posterior supplementary motor area at the second session. The lower cortical signal was characterized by reduced activated areas with no change in maximum peak intensity in most cases. Changes were partially reversed at the third session. Part of the test–retest effect may come from habituation of the MRI experiment context. Less attention and stress at the second and third sessions may be components of the inhibition of cortical activity. Because the changes became reversed, the authors suggest that, beyond the habituation process, a learning process occurred that had nothing to do with procedural learning, because the tasks were well learned or passive. A long-term memory representation of the sensorimotor task, not only with its characteristics (for example, amplitude, frequency) but also with its context (fMRI), can become integrated into the motor system along the sessions. Furthermore, the pattern observed in the fMRI signal changes might evoke a consolidation process.