Skip to main content

7 T and beyond: toward a synergy between fMRI-based presurgical mapping at ultrahigh magnetic fields, AI, and robotic neurosurgery

Abstract

Presurgical evaluation with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can reduce postsurgical morbidity. Here, we discuss presurgical fMRI mapping at ultra-high magnetic fields (UHF), i.e., ≥ 7 T, in the light of the current growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) and robot-assisted neurosurgery. The potential of submillimetre fMRI mapping can help better appreciate uncertainty on resection margins, though geometric distortions at UHF might lessen the accuracy of fMRI maps. A useful trade-off for UHF fMRI is to collect data with 1-mm isotropic resolution to ensure high sensitivity and subsequently a low risk of false negatives. Scanning at UHF might yield a revival interest in slow event-related fMRI, thereby offering a richer depiction of the dynamics of fMRI responses. The potential applications of AI concern denoising and artefact removal, generation of super-resolution fMRI maps, and accurate fusion or coregistration between anatomical and fMRI maps. The latter can benefit from the use of T1-weighted echo-planar imaging for better visualization of brain activations. Such AI-augmented fMRI maps would provide high-quality input data to robotic surgery systems, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of robot-assisted neurosurgery. Ultimately, the advancement in fMRI at UHF would promote clinically useful synergies between fMRI, AI, and robotic neurosurgery.

Relevance statement This review highlights the potential synergies between fMRI at UHF, AI, and robotic neurosurgery in improving the accuracy and reliability of fMRI-based presurgical mapping.

Key points

• Presurgical fMRI mapping at UHF improves spatial resolution and sensitivity.

• Slow event-related designs offer a richer depiction of fMRI responses dynamics.

• AI can support denoising, artefact removal, and generation of super-resolution fMRI maps.

• AI-augmented fMRI maps can provide high-quality input data to robotic surgery systems.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

In clinical settings, presurgical mapping of eloquent cortex is usually achieved with invasive procedures. For example, intraoperative brain mapping on awake patients by cortico-cortical evoked potential involves direct cortical stimulation to observe elicitation of an impairment with high frequency stimulation (25 to 50 Hz) or evoked responses in distant or nearby cortical regions with low-frequency stimulation (1 Hz). This invasive procedure can sometimes yield behavioral responses that are difficult to interpret [1, 2].

An alternative approach that is relatively noninvasive is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This technique has been shown to provide robust and reliable assessment of brain function with typical clinical MRI scanners at 1.5 or 3 T [3]. Indeed, presurgical mapping with fMRI remains the most widely used application of clinical fMRI [4, 5], enabling patient-specific mapping of eloquent brain regions close to pathologies [6], including brain tumors or epileptic foci, so that vital activated brain regions are spared to minimise the risk of postsurgical impairments. There is compelling evidence that preoperative mapping with fMRI can reduce postsurgical morbidity [7, 8].

fMRI-based presurgical mapping is considered one of the key applications that will largely benefit from scanning patients at ultrahigh magnetic fields (UHF) [9,10,11,12]. Although task-based and task-free fMRI is still widely performed at traditional field strengths (1.5 or 3 T), fMRI at UHF (7 T or above) is rapidly gaining in popularity after 7-T MRI scanners were approved for clinical use by the FDA and the European Union, and many studies have already shown that presurgical mapping at UHF is safe [13, 14]. Brain mapping at UHF boosts reliability at the individual patient level thanks to the increase in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [15, 16] and the subsequent enhancement in contrast-to-noise ratio [17, 18]. This increase in SNR can translate into (i) higher spatial resolution, (ii) higher temporal resolution, (iii) shorter total acquisition times, (iv) better blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) sensitivity to minimise false negatives, and (v) improved BOLD spatial specificity by reducing signals from draining veins. Here, we discuss how UHF can transform current presurgical mapping procedures in the clinical setting, in particular in the current growing interest in AI and robotic surgery.

It is well documented that high spatiotemporal brain mapping at UHF [18] allows better specificity with significantly less partial volume effects compared to fMRI at traditional field strengths [19]. For instance, previous presurgical fMRI studies have demonstrated a significant increase in sensitivity with motor [20] and language tasks [21] as well as during rest [22] at UHF. The superiority of presurgical brain mapping at UHF compared to traditional field strengths is observed in terms of a higher number of suprathreshold voxels or clusters, a larger percent signal change or effect size, a higher statistical t-values or z-scores, and/or the activation of small or deep structures that are sometimes difficult to depict at traditional field strengths [23,24,25,26]. Such gains are a direct consequence of the monotonic increase of BOLD sensitivity with magnetic field strength, yielding increased extent of activated areas at higher spatial definitions. This has significant practical implications for neurosurgery: (i) higher spatial resolution fMRI maps offer the possibility for resections at an excellent precision, (ii) larger activated volumes might presumably translate into more conservative resections, and (iii) high BOLD sensitivity and low false negative rates would translate into reduced risk of postsurgical complications. However, despite such significant benefits at UHF, we argue here that the most beneficial aspect of conducting presurgical mapping at UHF should concern the increase in BOLD sensitivity rather than a push for higher sub-millimetric spatial resolutions, in particular in the light of the strong susceptibility-related distortions at UHF.

Optimal fMRI paradigms at UHF

All types of fMRI paradigms are applicable at UHF. Task-based fMRI with block, event-related, or mixed designs offer flexibility in mapping brain function according to the function of interest and the patient’s ability to perform the task [27]. The relevant features that define an optimal design are the same as those at traditional magnetic fields, including stimulus type, baseline condition, task, response type, and acquisition duration, given that many of these features can impact on the accuracy of presurgical fMRI, as shown in a systematic review [28]. Moreover, studies have tested and compared a variety of tasks to identify the most reliable tasks and paradigms for presurgical evaluation [29,30,31]. This has led to the publication of several recommendations and guidelines about the optimal tasks to use at traditional fields [32, 33]. Many of these recommendations are still valid and useful at UHF. However, it is likely that some tasks previously described as less reliable at traditional fields might be useful at UHF due to the increase in BOLD sensitivity. This calls for an update to existing guidelines, which might help expand the repertoire of motor and cognitive tasks that can be used in fMRI-based presurgical evaluation at UHF. For example, in the language domain, reading or semantic tasks are not typically considered as highly reliable tasks for presurgical identification of temporal regions [34,35,36]. It is likely that such tasks, even when used with passive responses, could still be valuable at UHF for some patients who struggle with tasks that rely on word finding.

Regarding task-free fMRI, mapping at rest is particularly useful for patients who are unable to cooperate or who are scanned under sedation [37, 38], with the advantage of localizing many brain regions and networks from one session/run [39, 40]. Presurgical mapping with resting-state fMRI has been shown to be reliable and concordant with task-based fMRI as well as with intraoperative electrocortical stimulation [40,41,42,43]. Recent work reported high reliability (i.e., high between-session consistency and stability) of single-subject resting state networks at UHF [44, 45]. Likewise, resting-state fMRI demonstrated a superior seizure onset-zone lateralizing ability at 7 T compared to 3 T during an epilepsy presurgical evaluation [22]. Despite its potential in presurgical mapping, the application of resting-state fMRI is still facing many methodological challenges with respect to the complexity of data analysis, the lack of standardization of fMRI protocols at rest [46] and the difficulty to assign a specific function of a particular node of a resting-state network [47]. Likewise, there is a lack of awareness among clinicians about the potential of such protocols at rest and the availability of automated data processing methods at the single patient level [48]. Nevertheless, fMRI at rest will likely gain in popularity at UHF, making the mapping of different brain networks at the individual patient level from one session (5−10 min) easily manageable by patients and MRI technicians.

In the same way, naturalistic fMRI paradigms offer an attractive alternative for presurgical fMRI mapping. They can reliably depict eloquent cortex, including paradigms that involve passive viewing of movie clips [49, 50]. Such paradigms are very handy when patients cannot perform tasks or cooperate in the absence of any external instructions. They also help increase scanner tolerability when scanning with noisy sequences at UHF and can decrease boredom and anxiety in the scanner. As patients are not asked to actively respond to (repetitive) stimuli, watching video clips can minimise the occurrence of head motion artefacts. Video clips can be tailored to the specific function or the population of interest. For instance, different video clips can be used in presurgical mapping in elderly patients with tumors or young children with epilepsy. Another benefit of video clips is that they can be translated to any language and are easy to share across different MRI sites. It is expected that movie fMRI-based presurgical mapping will gain in popularity at UHF.

Now, we turn to an overlooked paradigm that concerns mapping brain activations with slow event-related designs. Although rapid event-related designs offer higher detection power than other paradigms [51], slow event-related design might transform how presurgical mapping is carried out. Thanks to the increase in SNR at UHF, slow event-related designs, defined as event related paradigms with an interstimulus interval larger than the typical duration of the hemodynamic responses function [52], can identify not only the activated regions but also their estimated hemodynamic delays [53]. With minimal overlap between BOLD responses of successive trials in slow event-related designs, different time parameters and latencies [54,55,56,57] that characterise the dynamics of the hemodynamic correlates of neuronal function in patients can be estimated (Fig. 1), which could be useful given the different biological and methodological factors that impact on the modelling of BOLD responses at high spatial resolution [58]. Such time parameters can offer an insight into tumor-induced alterations to the neurovascular coupling [59, 60]. For instance, multiple whole-brain maps can be generated for a given task at the individual patient level, including maps of time-to-onset, time-to-peak, response width, and peak amplitude [61]. This would help explain instances of aberrant fMRI responses in patients [62] and to better appreciate the risk of false negatives and false positives in presurgical fMRI. Perhaps most importantly, the multiple generated maps provide richer information at the voxel level that can be valuable for the development of risk prediction models about post-surgery outcome and recovery.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Slow (top) and fast (middle) event-related design. Events or trials are shown with black bars. Deconvolution methods can be used with fast event-related fMRI, assuming linear responses, low inter-trial variability, and uncorrelated noise. When these conditions are not met, slow event-related designs are preferable as any loss in paradigm design efficiency is compensated by the high signal-to-noise ratio at ultrahigh field. Bottom: an example of a typical hemodynamic response function with some useful parameters that can be derived from it: ttid (time to initial dip), tto (time to onset), ttp (time to peak), ttus (time to undershoot), fwhm (fullwidth at half maximum). These parameters can be estimated at each voxel, yielding multiple three-dimensional maps for each task/contrast. fMRI Functional magnetic resonance imaging, ITI Intertrial interval

The challenge of submillimetre presurgical mapping

Submillimetre presurgical mapping of brain function is often portrayed as the most beneficial aspect of scanning patients at UHF. This gain in spatial resolution would enable resection of brain tumors or epileptic foci at high spatial precision, thus minimizing the extent of postsurgical damage to neighbouring healthy tissue. For that purpose, the localization of eloquent cortex needs to be highly accurate because a small shift of resection margins or suboptimal surgical access can yield postsurgical impairments (Fig. 2). For instance, it has been shown that resection margins in the millimetre range close to eloquent brain areas may determine whether postoperative deficits are reversible or permanent [63], which underscores the importance of high-resolution brain maps for image-guided surgeries.

Fig. 2
figure 2

fMRI activations in a patient with a brain tumor (showing one slice dorsal to the main tumor in the right hemisphere). A zoomed view showing the contours of two activated clusters. The location and extent of the clusters are important indicators to be accounted for during the definition of the resection margins. However, location and extent of activations are intrinsically defined by many factors including the original spatial resolution, partial volume effects in particular near tissue borders as well as the heterogenous peri-tumoral zone, the effect of the statistical threshold, the risk of false negatives and positives that can be exacerbated by artefacts such as head motion artefacts, and susceptibility artefacts causing geometric distortions that can lead to a mismatch or misregistration between functional echo-planar imaging (EPI) and anatomical T1-weighted (T1w) images. fMRI Functional magnetic resonance imaging

However, the precision that would be gained for neurosurgical procedures is inherently bounded by the accuracy of the fMRI-based mapping of the eloquent cortex at UHF. Despite the possibility to scan the brain at submillimetre scale, the presence of susceptibility artefacts can induce geometric distortions that yield tissue displacements in the collected images [64]. This is because brain tissues with differing magnetic susceptibilities can cause gradients in the static magnetic field, which would lead to regional variations in the effective echo time, resulting in artefacts in image signal and BOLD sensitivity [65]. For instance, the widely used echo-planar imaging (EPI) in fMRI is prone to geometric distortions [64, 66], yielding clinically significant displacements of brain activations [67]. Such spatial distortions are notoriously difficult to correct at UHF as they do increase with magnetic field strength, so it is of paramount importance that these distortions are corrected at UHF. Furthermore, such spatial distortions might be particularly problematic when scanning patients at UHF, even when other acquisition schemes such as spiral fMRI is used [68] or multiband EPI [69], as they get worse with large head motion artefacts in patients and they tend to be spatially heterogenous [70] as in the case of severe distortions in brain areas around air cavities or distant from the isocenter of the scanner [71].

Despite the existence of many sophisticated correction methods for geometric distortions [67, 72,73,74], still displacement errors after correction are above the millimetre level in some brain regions, making any ultra-high-resolution fMRI mapping (e.g., voxel size < 1 mm3) not very reliable for surgical applications. For instance, a recent comparative study showed possible displacement of up to 4 mm in raw EPI images, in particular in ventromedial prefrontal regions, that were corrected to the voxel size using different corrections methods [74]. Another study reported spatial distortions up to 5.1 mm in the primary motor cortex in raw EPI images, but these distortions were reduced to less than 1.7 mm after correction [67]. Likewise, correction for susceptibility artefacts based on T1-weighted anatomical images was shown to be highly robust when tested on a submillimetre 7-T fMRI dataset [75]. In addition to susceptibility-induced distortions, alterations to the vasculature of the brain in the presence of tumors could adversely affect the neurovascular coupling [60], especially in peritumoral areas, which might yield to spatially aberrant brain activations. Taken together, these effects would limit the reliability of submillimetre fMRI mapping at UHF, suggesting that going below isotropic 1-mm spatial resolution in fMRI might not necessarily translate into accurate submillimetre resection margins. Advanced correction methods are needed in order to generate artefact-free fMRI maps at UHF, including new methods based on AI.

AI-based fMRI enhancement and artefacts correction

In this context, one exciting emerging field concerns the application of machine learning techniques, including deep learning, for the correction of artefacts in MRI [76, 77]. AI-based corrections for motion artefacts [78, 79] and susceptibility artefacts in EPI images [80,81,82,83] have been shown to be robust and extremely useful. The appealing feature in these techniques is that they do not require prior knowledge on the exact true mapping between brain structures and MRI-based depiction of those structures, as this (nonlinear) mapping is learned in a data-driven way. This is very useful in the context of fMRI as artefacts are extremely complex to fully characterise because they are spatially heterogenous, variable across subjects, sessions, sequences, and scanners, and they also result from an intricate interplay between different interacting sources including geometric distortions, motion artefacts, and altered neurovascular coupling [84]. The ability of AI-based tools to generate artefact-free fMRI maps will improve with the size of data used in the training stages. This will benefit from existing large fMRI datasets and data sharing initiatives. Furthermore, such AI-based tools for artefacts correction in fMRI maps can be integrated with other AI tools that are powering robotic surgery systems, which can ultimately offer an automated robust integrated platform for neurosurgical procedures in patients.

In addition to the utility of AI-based tools for artefact removal, recent work also demonstrated the usefulness of AI tools for fMRI maps enhancement, including the possibility to generate super-resolution images [85,86,87]. A recent work used a deep learning-based super-resolution technique to translate low-resolution fMRI images into high-resolution fMRI images [88, 89]. Specifically, fMRI activations in the motor cortex [88] and the visual system [89] were mapped at much higher resolution after AI transformation than the original images, offering an improved spatial accuracy for the detection of brain activations. This means that generating fMRI maps at submillimetre scale can be achieved from original fMRI data collected at isotropic > 1-mm resolution, hence offering both high BOLD sensitivity at acquisition stage and high spatial resolution at the AI-based data processing stage. AI can also help optimise coregistration or fusion between the generated super-resolution fMRI maps and the collected high-resolution anatomical images for accurate visualization of eloquent cortex. An alternative approach is to display anatomy using a high-resolution EPI image with a strong T1-weighted contrast. For instance, the first collected EPI image of a typical fMRI session, before reaching tissue steady-state magnetization, can display a better contrast between different brain tissue classes. Recent work has also proposed alternative T1-weighted EPI images with excellent contrast and spatial resolution at UHF [90, 91] that can reveal the anatomical location of activated regions with high fidelity. Such AI tools can be made compatible, at high interoperability, with other AI tools that power the robot-assisted surgery system [92] in a way that optimises synergies between fMRI mapping and surgical procedures (Fig. 3). Overall, the implementation of AI to neurosurgery can further augment the capabilities of neurosurgeons and ultimately improve safety and patient outcomes; for review, see [92,93,94].

Fig. 3
figure 3

Schematic illustration of the synergy between three advanced technologies for presurgical mapping with fMRI: scanning at UHF, AI, and robotic neurosurgery (yellow boxes). AI can enhance the performance of both the presurgical mapping with fMRI during data acquisition and processing, and robotic surgery for better precision, modelling of brain tissue deformation, and real-time control of surgical tools. [green boxes] main benefits and challenges at UHF, with a trade-off to scan at ≥ 1-mm isotropic instead of aiming at much higher submillimetre spatial resolutions. AI Artificial intelligence, BOLD Blood oxygenation level dependent, fMRI Functional magnetic resonance imaging, SNR Signal-to-noise ratio, UHF Ultrahigh magnetic fields

Implications for image-guided robotic-assisted neurosurgery

There is a rich literature about the role of robotic systems for safe and high-precision neurosurgery [95,96,97,98]. Robots, usually deployed as robotic arms, are increasingly used in the operating room [99], with image-guided robotic surgeries offering clinically useful accuracy and surgery time [100] as well as high reliability and efficacy [101, 102]. They can eliminate errors [103] and reduce human hand tremors for a higher degree of precision [104]. Despite their limitations with respect to high cost and lack of haptic feedback [105, 106], robotic systems like ROSA, da Vinci, and NeuroArm are routinely used for diverse neurosurgical applications, including in functional neurosurgery, epilepsy surgery, deep brain stimulation, laser ablation of brain tumors, spinal surgery, and stereotactic biopsy [107,108,109].

In particular, in stereotactic brain tumors resection [110, 111], safety and outcomes for patients have improved thanks to the capability of robots to provide superior spatial resolution, geometric accuracy, and superior dexterity [104, 112]. These capabilities are further enhanced with medical imaging and navigation technologies, thereby yielding robust and safe image-guided robotic neurosurgical procedures [102]. Specifically, such critical imaging information, when offered at high resolution, can help neurosurgeons enter the brain with the robotic arm along the safest angle that would minimise the risk of damage to critical tissue. When those decisions on how to enter and resect the brain are based on presurgical maps, one can envisage the significant benefits that presurgical mapping at UHF might bring with its high resolution and sensitivity, in particular when it is further enhanced with AI [113]. Add to that the possibility to simulate virtual robotic surgeries based on high-resolution presurgical maps, which can then be subsequently executed as pre-planned procedures in the operating room.

Despite the lack of empirical studies on the usefulness of high-resolution presurgical maps at UHF for robotic-assisted neurosurgeries, the gain in resolution and sensitivity at UHF is expected to improve accuracy. We note however that the consistency of robots in achieving high accuracy can vary across robotic systems [114]. Moreover, other advancements are being introduced in robotic-assisted neurosurgery to improve accuracy and safety, including advancements in medical imaging, machine learning, augmented and virtual reality, enhanced interfaces, improved ergonomics, and optimized visualization techniques [98, 99, 115]. Perhaps one important advancement concerns the blending with AI, thereby opening new horizons toward AI-powered autonomous robots in the operating room [106]. For instance, in a recent retrospective appraisal of 700 robot-assisted stereotactic surgeries, the margin errors were on average around 1 mm [116] but were further reduced when robotic surgery was powered by AI [117]. The combination of presurgical mapping at UHF with AI-powered robotic neurosurgery will likely revolutionize neurosurgical procedures for patients with brain tumors or drug-resistant epilepsy. A similar rationale about AI-powered robots was described for endovascular neurosurgery [118]. Such neurosurgical procedures can capitalise on the integration (or fusion) of presurgical fMRI maps with other imaging modalities within surgical navigation systems [119, 120].

Manageable fMRI data and shorter acquisition times

There are other practical aspects that makes a > 1-mm isotropic spatial resolution a good compromise for fMRI-based presurgical mapping. Going to submillimetre scale at 0.5 mm isotropic for instance will generate massive data that are not always easy to handle in typical clinical settings in terms of data storage and data transfer to surgical navigation systems: acquisition at 0.5-mm spatial resolution generates eight times more data than at 1-mm resolution. For example, a recent high-resolution anatomical image collected at UHF of one subject at 0.1 mm resolution took almost 2 terabytes of raw k-space data [121], a storage size that needs to be multiplied by hundreds for raw and processed EPI images. Furthermore, at 1-mm spatial resolution, scanning at UHF can reduce the total acquisition time. This is very useful for task-based fMRI, particularly as many patients find it hard to perform tasks and remain still for prolonged periods [12]. Patients tend to move more than healthy subjects, and many of the tasks used in presurgical planning, such as hand movement or overt speech, might induce head motion [84, 122]. Shorter acquisition times can be achieved by scanning at high temporal resolution (short repetition times), which is already showing improved BOLD sensitivity for presurgical mapping at UHF [123, 124]. Last but not the least, shorter acquisition times will make the presurgical mapping safer for patients by minimizing some of the many side effects that have been frequently reported at UHF [13, 125], including vertigo, dizziness, false feelings of motion, nausea, nystagmus, magnetophosphenes, electrogustatory effects, light flashes, metallic taste in the mouth, too much noise during longer image acquisition, and/or discomfort.

Conclusions

Current technology at UHF is enabling data collection at high SNR and high spatial resolution [126, 127]. In the next decade, magnetic field strengths are expected to go even higher than 7 T to reach 10 T or even 20 T [128, 129]. This growing interest in UHF is already promoting the development of novel analysis methods to detect atypical brain activations [130]), to generate reliable patient-specific fMRI maps in cases with altered hemodynamic responses [131] or with huge head motion artefacts [132]. Thanks to the increase in BOLD sensitivity at UHF, presurgical mapping with fMRI at 1-mm isotropic resolution offers high BOLD sensitivity, accurate spatial mapping, and manageable data size. Generating artefact-free brain maps is of paramount importance to minimise postsurgical complications [70]. In this context, there is a need for the creation of a task force to develop standardized safe fMRI protocols at UHF, including patient-tolerable fMRI paradigms, low-risk data acquisition protocols, and optimal data processing methods. Validation studies are also warranted [27], in particular for resting-state fMRI protocols. The current growing interest in MRI-compatible robotic systems [133], allowing for instance the deployment of robotic systems inside the bore for a closed-loop surgery architecture, might expand in the next decade to new MRI systems at UHF. Combination will other functional modalities warrants future research [134]. Future work needs to explore novel ways to optimise the synergies between fMRI-based presurgical mapping, robotic neurosurgery, and AI.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were used or generated for this study.

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

BOLD:

Blood oxygenation level dependent

EPI:

Echo-planar imaging

fMRI:

Functional magnetic resonance imaging

SNR :

Signal-to-noise ratio

UHF:

Ultrahigh magnetic fields

References

  1. Borchers S, Himmelbach M, Logothetis N, Karnath HO (2011) Direct electrical stimulation of human cortex - the gold standard for mapping brain functions? Nat Rev Neurosci 13:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goel K, Pek V, Shlobin NA et al (2023) Clinical utility of intraoperative electrocorticography for epilepsy surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsia 64:253–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rigolo L, Essayed W, Tie Y, Norton I, Mukundan S Jr, Golby A (2020) Intraoperative use of functional MRI for surgical decision making after limited or infeasible electrocortical stimulation mapping. J Neuroimaging 30:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Orringer DA, Vago DR, Golby AJ (2012) Clinical applications and future directions of functional MRI. Semin Neurol 32:466–475. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1331816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Specht K (2020) Current challenges in translational and clinical fMRI and future directions. Front Psychiatry 10:924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00924

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Duffau H (2006) New concepts in surgery of WHO grade II gliomas: functional brain mapping, connectionism and plasticity–a review. J Neurooncol 79:77–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-005-9109-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luna LP, Sherbaf FG, Sair HI, Mukherjee D, Oliveira IB, Kohler CA (2021) Can preoperative mapping with functional MRI reduce morbidity in brain tumor resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 68 observational studies. Radiology 300:338–349. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021204723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crow AJD, Thomas A, Rao Y et al (2022) Task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging prediction of postsurgical cognitive outcomes in temporal lobe epilepsy: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and new data. Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Beisteiner R (2013) Improving clinical fMRI: better paradigms or higher field strength? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:1972–1973. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Cosottini M, Roccatagliata L (2021) Neuroimaging at 7 T: are we ready for clinical transition? Eur Radiol Exp 5:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00234-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Platt T, Ladd ME, Paech D (2021) 7 Tesla and beyond: advanced methods and clinical applications in magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 56:705–725. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000820

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Trattnig S, Springer E, Bogner W et al (2018) Key clinical benefits of neuroimaging at 7T. Neuroimage 168:477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vargas MI, Martelli P, Xin L et al (2018) Clinical neuroimaging using 7 T MRI: challenges and prospects. J Neuroimaging 28:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grouiller F, Jorge J, Pittau F et al (2016) Presurgical brain mapping in epilepsy using simultaneous EEG and functional MRI at ultra-high field: feasibility and first results. MAGMA 29:605–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0536-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pohmann R, Speck O, Scheffler K (2016) Signal-to-noise ratio and MR tissue parameters in human brain imaging at 3, 7, and 9.4 tesla using current receive coil arrays. Magn Reson Med 75:801–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Triantafyllou C, Hoge RD, Krueger G et al (2005) Comparison of physiological noise at 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T and optimization of fMRI acquisition parameters. Neuroimage 26:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Zwaag W, Francis S, Head K et al (2009) fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: characterising BOLD signal changes. Neuroimage 47:1425–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yacoub E, Shmuel A, Pfeuffer J et al (2001) Imaging brain function in humans at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 45:588–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vu AT, Jamison K, Glasser MF et al (2017) Tradeoffs in pushing the spatial resolution of fMRI for the 7T Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage 154:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Beisteiner R, Robinson S, Wurnig M et al (2011) Clinical fMRI: evidence for a 7T benefit over 3T. Neuroimage 57:1015–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Geissler A, Matt E, Fischmeister F et al (2014) Differential functional benefits of ultra highfield MR systems within the language network. Neuroimage 103:163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lucas A, Cornblath EJ, Sinha N et al (2023) Improved seizure onset-zone lateralization in temporal lobe epilepsy using 7T resting-state fMRI: a direct comparison with 3T. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.06.23291025.

  23. Kreitz S, Mennecke A, Konerth L et al (2023) 3T vs. 7T fMRI: capturing early human memory consolidation after motor task utilizing the observed higher functional specificity of 7T. Front Neurosci. 17:1215400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1215400

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Colizoli O, de Gee JW, van der Zwaag W, Donner TH (2022) Functional magnetic resonance imaging responses during perceptual decision-making at 3 and 7 T in human cortex, striatum, and brainstem. Hum Brain Mapp 43:1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Torrisi S, Chen G, Glen D et al (2018) Statistical power comparisons at 3T and 7T with a GO / NOGO task. Neuroimage 175:100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Hollander G, Keuken MC, van der Zwaag W, Forstmann BU, Trampel R (2017) Comparing functional MRI protocols for small, iron-rich basal ganglia nuclei such as the subthalamic nucleus at 7 T and 3 T. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3226–3248. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23586

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lakhani DA, Sabsevitz DS, Chaichana KL, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Middlebrooks EH (2023) Current state of functional MRI in the presurgical planning of brain tumors. Radiol Imaging Cancer 5:e230078. https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.230078

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Weng HH, Noll KR, Johnson JM et al (2018) Accuracy of presurgical functional MR imaging for language mapping of brain tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 286:512–523. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson SM, Bautista A, Yen M, Lauderdale S, Eriksson DK (2017) Validity and reliability of four language mapping paradigms. Neuroimage Clin 16:399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ekert JO, Kirkman MA, Seghier ML, Green DW, Price CJ (2021) A data-based approach for selecting pre- and intra-operative language mapping tasks. Front Neurosci 15:743402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.743402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Elin K, Malyutina S, Bronov O et al (2022) A new functional magnetic resonance imaging localizer for preoperative language mapping using a sentence completion task: validity, choice of baseline condition, and test-retest reliability. Front Hum Neurosci 16:791577. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.791577

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Szaflarski JP, Gloss D, Binder JR et al (2017) Practice guideline summary: use of fMRI in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 88:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Black DF, Vachha B, Mian A et al (2017) American Society of Functional Neuroradiology-Recommended fMRI Paradigm Algorithms for Presurgical Language Assessment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:E65–E73. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Binder JR, Swanson SJ, Hammeke TA, Sabsevitz DS (2008) A comparison of five fMRI protocols for mapping speech comprehension systems. Epilepsia 49:1980–1997

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Morrison MA, Churchill NW, Cusimano MD, Schweizer TA, Das S, Graham SJ (2016) Reliability of task-based fMRI for preoperative planning: a test-retest study in brain tumor patients and healthy controls. PLoS One 11:e0149547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Giussani C, Roux FE, Ojemann J, Sganzerla EP, Pirillo D, Papagno C (2010) Is preoperative functional magnetic resonance imaging reliable for language areas mapping in brain tumor surgery? Review of language functional magnetic resonance imaging and direct cortical stimulation correlation studies. Neurosurgery 66:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000360392.15450.C9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee MH, Miller-Thomas MM, Benzinger TL et al (2016) Clinical resting-state fMRI in the preoperative setting: are we ready for prime time? Top Magn Reson Imaging 25:11–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000075

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sparacia G, Parla G, Mamone G, Caruso M, Torregrossa F, Grasso G (2021) Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging for surgical neuro-oncology planning: towards a standardization in clinical settings. Brain Sci. 11:1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11121613

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mitchell TJ, Hacker CD, Breshears JD et al (2013) A novel data-driven approach to preoperative mapping of functional cortex using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery 73:969–982. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000141. discussion 982-963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zaca D, Jovicich J, Corsini F, Rozzanigo U, Chioffi F, Sarubbo S (2018) ReStNeuMap: a tool for automatic extraction of resting-state functional MRI networks in neurosurgical practice. J Neurosurg 131:764–771. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.4.JNS18474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vakamudi K, Posse S, Jung R, Cushnyr B, Chohan MO (2020) Real-time presurgical resting-state fMRI in patients with brain tumors: Quality control and comparison with task-fMRI and intraoperative mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 41:797–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hsu AL, Chen HS, Hou P et al (2020) Presurgical resting-state functional MRI language mapping with seed selection guided by regional homogeneity. Magn Reson Med 84:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Park KY, Lee JJ, Dierker D et al (2020) Mapping language function with task-based vs. resting-state functional MRI. PLoS One 15:e0236423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236423

  44. Branco P, Seixas D, Castro SL (2018) Temporal reliability of ultra-high field resting-state MRI for single-subject sensorimotor and language mapping. Neuroimage 168:499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.11.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sbaihat H, Rajkumar R, Ramkiran S et al (2022) Test-retest stability of spontaneous brain activity and functional connectivity in the core resting-state networks assessed with ultrahigh field 7-Tesla resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 43:2026–2040. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25771

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosazza C, Zaca D, Bruzzone MG (2018) Pre-surgical brain mapping: to rest or not to rest? Front Neurol 9:520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00520

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Gujar SK, Manzoor K, Wongsripuemtet J et al (2023) Identification of the language network from resting-state fMRI in patients with brain tumors: how accurate are experts? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 44:274–282. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. O’Connor EE, Zeffiro TA (2019) Why is clinical fMRI in a resting state? Front Neurol 10:420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00420

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Tie Y, Rigolo L, Ozdemir Ovalioglu A et al (2015) A new paradigm for individual subject language mapping: movie-watching fMRI. J Neuroimaging 25:710–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Pur DR, Eagleson R, Lo M, Jurkiewicz MT, Andrade A, de Ribaupierre S (2021) Presurgical brain mapping of the language network in pediatric patients with epilepsy using resting-state fMRI. J Neurosurg Pediatr 27:259–268. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.8.PEDS20517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tie Y, Suarez RO, Whalen S, Radmanesh A, Norton IH, Golby AJ (2009) Comparison of blocked and event-related fMRI designs for pre-surgical language mapping. Neuroimage 47(Suppl 2):T107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.11.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Buckner R, Bandettini P, O’Craven K et al (1996) Detection of cortical activation during averaged single trials of cognitive task using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:14878–14883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Saad ZS, DeYoe EA, Ropella KM (2003) Estimation of FMRI response delays. Neuroimage 18:494–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(02)00024-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu HL, Gao JH (1999) Perfusion-based event-related functional MRI. Magn Reson Med 42:1011–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1522-2594(199912)42:6%3c1011::aid-mrm3%3e3.0.co;2-r

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Glover GH (1999) Deconvolution of impulse response in event-related BOLD fMRI. Neuroimage 9:416–429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Menon RS, Luckowsky DL, Gati JS (1998) Mental chronometry using latency-resolved functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:10902–10907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Ogawa S, Lee TM, Stepnoski R, Chen W, Zhu XH, Ugurbil K (2000) An approch to probe some neural systems interaction by functional MRI at neural time scale down to milliseconds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:11026–11031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Goense J, Bohraus Y, Logothetis NK (2016) fMRI at high spatial resolution: implications for BOLD-models. Front Comput Neurosci 10:66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2016.00066

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Agarwal S, Sair HI, Airan R et al (2016) Demonstration of brain tumor-induced neurovascular uncoupling in resting-state fMRI at ultrahigh field. Brain Connect 6:267–272. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2015.0402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Pak RW, Hadjiabadi DH, Senarathna J et al (2017) Implications of neurovascular uncoupling in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of brain tumors. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 37:3475–3487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678X17707398

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Taylor AJ, Kim JH, Ress D (2022) Temporal stability of the hemodynamic response function across the majority of human cerebral cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 43:4924–4942. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Sun H, Vachha B, Laino ME et al (2020) Decreased hand motor resting-state functional connectivity in patients with glioma: analysis of factors including neurovascular uncoupling. Radiology 294:610–621. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Haglund MM, Hochman DW, Spence AM, Berger MS (1994) Enhanced optical imaging of rat gliomas and tumor margins. Neurosurgery 35:930–940. https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-199411000-00019. discussion 940-931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Constable RT (2023) Challenges in FMRI and its limitations. In: Faro SH, Mohamed FB (eds) Functional Neuroradiology: Springer. Cham

    Google Scholar 

  65. Dymerska B, De Lima Cardoso P, Bachrata B et al (2019) The impact of echo time shifts and temporal signal fluctuations on BOLD sensitivity in presurgical planning at 7 T. Invest Radiol 54:340–348. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jezzard P, Clare S (1999) Sources of distortion in functional MRI data. Human Brain Mapping 8:80–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Lima Cardoso P, Dymerska B, Bachrata B et al (2018) The clinical relevance of distortion correction in presurgical fMRI at 7T. Neuroimage 168:490–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kasper L, Engel M, Heinzle J et al (2022) Advances in spiral fMRI: a high-resolution study with single-shot acquisition. Neuroimage 246:118738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. In MH, Kang D, Jo HJ et al (2023) Minimizing susceptibility-induced BOLD sensitivity loss in multi-band accelerated fMRI using point spread function mapping and gradient reversal. Phys Med Biol, 68. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/acae14.

  70. Pouratian N, Wilson B, Bookheimer SY (2023) Clinical challenges of functional MRI. In: Faro SH, Mohamed FB (eds) Functional Neuroradiology: Springer. Cham

    Google Scholar 

  71. Yamamoto T, Fukunaga M, Sugawara SK, Hamano YH, Sadato N (2021) Quantitative evaluations of geometrical distortion corrections in cortical surface-based analysis of high-resolution functional MRI data at 7T. J Magn Reson Imaging 53:1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Oh SH, Chung JY, In MH et al (2012) Distortion correction in EPI at ultra-high-field MRI using PSF mapping with optimal combination of shift detection dimension. Magn Reson Med 68:1239–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.23317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lau JC, Khan AR, Zeng TY, MacDougall KW, Parrent AG, Peters TM (2018) Quantification of local geometric distortion in structural magnetic resonance images: application to ultra-high fields. Neuroimage 168:141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Schallmo MP, Weldon KB, Burton PC, Sponheim SR, Olman CA (2021) Assessing methods for geometric distortion compensation in 7 T gradient echo functional MRI data. Hum Brain Mapp 42:4205–4223. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Duong STM, Phung SL, Bouzerdoum A, Boyd Taylor HG, Puckett AM, Schira MM (2020) Susceptibility artifact correction for sub-millimeter fMRI using inverse phase encoding registration and T1 weighted regularization. J Neurosci Methods 336:108625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.108625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee D, Lee JH, Ko J, Yoon J, Ryu K, Nam Y (2019) Deep learning in MR image processing. iMRI 23:81–99

    Google Scholar 

  77. Chen Z, Pawar K, Ekanayake M, Pain C, Zhong S, Egan GF (2022) Deep learning for image enhancement and correction in magnetic resonance imaging-state-of-the-art and challenges. J Digit Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00721-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Sommer K, Saalbach A, Brosch T, Hall C, Cross NM, Andre JB (2020) Correction of motion artifacts using a multiscale fully convolutional neural network. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 41:416–423. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Haskell MW, Cauley SF, Bilgic B et al (2019) Network Accelerated Motion Estimation and Reduction (NAMER): convolutional neural network guided retrospective motion correction using a separable motion model. Magn Reson Med 82:1452–1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27771

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Duong STM, Phung SL, Bouzerdoum A, Schira MM (2020) An unsupervised deep learning technique for susceptibility artifact correction in reversed phase-encoding EPI images. Magn Reson Imaging 71:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2020.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Duong STM, Phung SL, Bouzerdoum A, Ang SP, Schira MM (2021) Correcting susceptibility artifacts of MRI sensors in brain scanning: a 3D anatomy-guided deep learning approach. Sensors (Basel) 21:2314. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21072314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Zahneisen B, Baeumler K, Zaharchuk G, Fleischmann D, Zeineh M (2020) Deep flow-net for EPI distortion estimation. Neuroimage 217:116886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Qiao Y, Shi Y (2022) Unsupervised deep learning for FOD-based susceptibility distortion correction in diffusion MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 41:1165–1175. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2021.3134496

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Silva MA, See AP, Essayed WI, Golby AJ, Tie Y (2018) Challenges and techniques for presurgical brain mapping with functional MRI. Neuroimage Clin 17:794–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Rudie JD, Gleason T, Barkovich MJ et al (2022) Clinical assessment of deep learning-based super-resolution for 3D volumetric brain MRI. Radiol Artif Intell 4:e210059. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.210059

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Zhou Z, Ma A, Feng Q et al (2022) Super-resolution of brain tumor MRI images based on deep learning. J Appl Clin Med Phys 23:e13758. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13758

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. de Leeuw den Bouter ML, Ippolito G, O’Reilly TPA, Remis RF, van Gijzen MB, Webb AG, (2022) Deep learning-based single image super-resolution for low-field MR brain images. Sci Rep 12:6362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10298-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ota J, Umehara K, Kershaw J et al (2022) Super-resolution generative adversarial networks with static T2*WI-based subject-specific learning to improve spatial difference sensitivity in fMRI activation. Sci Rep 12:10319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14421-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Li HWB, Rosen MS, Nasr S, Iglesias JE (2024) Resolution- and stimulus-agnostic super-resolution of ultra-high-field functional MRI: application to visual studies. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14918

  90. van der Zwaag W, Buur PF, Fracasso A et al (2018) Distortion-matched T(1) maps and unbiased T(1)-weighted images as anatomical reference for high-resolution fMRI. Neuroimage 176:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Norbeck O, Sprenger T, Avventi E et al (2020) Optimizing 3D EPI for rapid T(1) -weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 84:1441–1455. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Noh SH, Cho PG, Kim KN, Kim SH, Shin DA (2023) Artificial intelligence for neurosurgery : current state and future directions. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 66:113–120. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2022.0130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Awuah WA, Adebusoye FT, Wellington J et al (2024) Recent outcomes and challenges of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning applications in neurosurgery – review applications of artificial intelligence in neurosurgery. World Neurosurgery X. 23:100301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Mofatteh M (2021) Neurosurg Artif Intell AIMS Neurosci 8:477–495. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2021025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Sutherland GR, Maddahi Y, Gan LS, Lama S, Zareinia K (2015) Robotics in the neurosurgical treatment of glioma. Surg Neurol Int 6:S1–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.151321

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Koizumi S, Shiraishi Y, Makita I, Kadowaki M, Sameshima T, Kurozumi K (2021) A novel technique for fence-post tube placement in glioma using the robot-guided frameless neuronavigation technique under exoscope surgery: patient series. J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2:CASE21466. https://doi.org/10.3171/CASE21466

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Seung S, Liu P, Park S, Park J-O, Ko SY (2015) Single-port robotic manipulator system for brain tumor removal surgery: SiromanS. Mechatronics 26:16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. McBeth PB, Louw DF, Rizun PR, Sutherland GR (2004) Robotics in neurosurgery. Am J Surg 188:68S–75S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Wagner CR, Phillips T, Roux S, Corrigan JP (2021) Future directions in robotic neurosurgery. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 21:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opab135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Pandya S, Motkoski JW, Serrano-Almeida C, Greer AD, Latour I, Sutherland GR (2009) Advancing neurosurgery with image-guided robotics. J Neurosurg 111:1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.2.JNS081334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Naros G, Machetanz K, Grimm F, Roser F, Gharabaghi A, Tatagiba M (2021) Framed and non-framed robotics in neurosurgery: a 10-year single-center experience. Int J Med Robot 17:e2282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Khanna O, Beasley R, Franco D, DiMaio S (2021) The path to surgical robotics in neurosurgery. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 20:514–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opab065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Bagga V, Bhattacharyya D (2018) Robotics in neurosurgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.supp1.19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Ahmed S, Javed G, Mubeen B et al (2018) Robotics in neurosurgery: a literature review. J Pak Med Assoc 68:258–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Elsabeh R, Singh S, Shasho J, Saltzman Y, Abrahams JM (2021) Cranial neurosurgical robotics. Br J Neurosurg 35:532–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2021.1950622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. May M (2024) The next generation of robotic surgery is emerging: but is it better than a human? Nat Med 30:2–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02740-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Gonzalez Martínez JA, Cardinale F (2022) Robot Neurosurg Princ Pract: Springer Cham

  108. Singh R, Wang K, Qureshi MB et al (2022) Robotics in neurosurgery: current prevalence and future directions. Surg Neurol Int, 13:373. https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_522_2022.

  109. Zhou S, Gao Y, Li R et al (2023) Neurosurgical robots in China: state of the art and future prospect. iScience. 26:107983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107983

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Doulgeris JJ, Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Filis AK, Shea TM, Aghayev K, Vrionis FD (2015) Robotics in neurosurgery: evolution, current challenges, and compromises. Cancer Control 22:352–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327481502200314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Arata J, Tada Y, Kozuka H et al (2011) Neurosurgical robotic system for brain tumor removal. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:375–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-010-0514-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Gajjar AA, Le Huy Dinh A, Lavadi RS et al (2023) Evolution of robotics in spine surgery: a historical perspective. Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery 33:101721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Dundar TT, Yurtsever I, Pehlivanoglu MK et al (2022) Machine learning-based surgical planning for neurosurgery: artificial intelligent approaches to the cranium. Front Surg 9:863633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.863633

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Lin T, Xie Q, Peng T, Zhao X, Chen D (2023) The role of robotic surgery in neurological cases: a systematic review on brain and spine applications. Heliyon 9:e22523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22523

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Kazemzadeh K, Akhlaghdoust M, Zali A (2023) Advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, augmented and virtual reality in neurosurgery. Front Surg 10:1241923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1241923

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Liu HG, Liu YY, Zhang H et al (2021) A bulk retrospective study of robot-assisted stereotactic biopsies of intracranial lesions guided by videometric tracker. Front Neurol 12:682733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.682733

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Williams S, Layard Horsfall H, Funnell JP et al (2022) Artificial intelligence in brain tumour surgery-an emerging paradigm. Cancers (Basel) 13:5010. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13195010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Bravo J, Wali AR, Hirshman BR et al (2022) Robotics and artificial intelligence in endovascular neurosurgery. Cureus 14:e23662. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23662

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Chiacchiaretta P, Perrucci MG, Caulo M et al (2022) A dedicated tool for presurgical mapping of brain tumors and mixed-reality navigation during neurosurgery. J Digit Imaging 35:704–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00609-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Hsu AL, Hou P, Johnson JM et al (2018) IClinfMRI software for integrating functional MRI techniques in presurgical mapping and clinical studies. Front Neuroinform 12:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Edlow BL, Mareyam A, Horn A et al (2019) 7 Tesla MRI of the ex vivo human brain at 100 micron resolution. Sci Data 6:244. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0254-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Krings T, Reinges MH, Erberich S et al (2001) Functional MRI for presurgical planning: problems, artefacts, and solution strategies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 70:749–760. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.70.6.749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Mark IT, Black DF, DeLone DR et al (2021) Higher temporal resolution multiband fMRI provides improved presurgical language maps. Neuroradiol 63:439–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-020-02569-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Yoo PE, John SE, Farquharson S et al (2018) 7T-fMRI: Faster temporal resolution yields optimal BOLD sensitivity for functional network imaging specifically at high spatial resolution. Neuroimage 164:214–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Hoff MN, At McKinney, Shellock FG et al (2019) Safety considerations of 7-T MRI in clinical practice. Radiology 292:509–518. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Bollmann S, Barth M (2021) New acquisition techniques and their prospects for the achievable resolution of fMRI. Prog Neurobiol 207:101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.101936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Shaffer A, Kwok SS, Naik A et al (2022) Ultra-high-field MRI in the diagnosis and management of gliomas: a systematic review. Front Neurol 13:857825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.857825

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Nowogrodzki A (2018) The world’’s strongest MRI machines are pushing human imaging to new limits. Nature 563:24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07182-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Budinger TF, Bird MD (2018) MRI and MRS of the human brain at magnetic fields of 14T to 20T: technical feasibility, safety, and neuroscience horizons. Neuroimage 168:509–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Jansma JM, Rutten GJ, Ramsey LE et al (2020) Automatic identification of atypical clinical fMRI results. Neuroradiology 62:1677–1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-020-02510-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Lima Cardoso P, Fischmeister FPS, Dymerska B et al (2017) Robust presurgical functional MRI at 7 T using response consistency. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3163–3174. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Robinson SD, Schopf V, Cardoso P et al (2013) Applying independent component analysis to clinical FMRI at 7 T. Front Hum Neurosci 7:496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00496

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Su H, Kwok KW, Cleary K et al (2022) State of the art and future opportunities in MRI-guided robot-assisted surgery and interventions. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng 110:968–992. https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2022.3169146

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Soloukey S, Collee E, Verhoef L et al (2023) Human brain mapping using co-registered fUS, fMRI and ESM during awake brain surgeries: a proof-of-concept study. Neuroimage 283:120435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author declares that no Large Language Models or other generative AI software were used during the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by Khalifa University, United Arab Emirates.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

This single-author paper was written and revised by MLS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed L. Seghier.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this review article did not involve any clinical data collection or systematic investigations on patients or animals.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seghier, M.L. 7 T and beyond: toward a synergy between fMRI-based presurgical mapping at ultrahigh magnetic fields, AI, and robotic neurosurgery. Eur Radiol Exp 8, 73 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00472-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00472-y

Keywords