Elsevier

NeuroImage

Volume 62, Issue 2, 15 August 2012, Pages 1177-1184
NeuroImage

Review
The mixed block/event-related design

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.084Get rights and content

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies began using block design and event-related design experiments. While providing many insights into brain functions, these fMRI design types ignore components of the BOLD signal that can teach us additional elements. The development of the mixed block/event-related fMRI design allowed for a fuller characterization of nonlinear and time-sensitive neuronal responses: for example, the interaction between block and event related factors and the simultaneous extraction of transient activity related to trials and block transitions and sustained activity related to task-level processing. This review traces the origins of the mixed block/event-related design from conceptual precursors to a seminal paper and on to subsequent studies using the method. The review also comments on aspects of the experimental design that must be considered when attempting to use the mixed block/event-related design. When taking into account these considerations, the mixed block/event-related design allows fuller utilization of the BOLD signal allowing deeper interpretation of how regions of the brain function on multiple timescales.

Highlights

► Mixed fMRI design allows for extraction of transient and sustained BOLD activity. ► Different BOLD timescales suggest different neural functions. ► Mixed design allows for modeling of putative task control signals. ► Use of mixed design requires power considerations prior to implementation.

Section snippets

Existing designs at time

With the advent of event-related designs, people's ambitions extended beyond just comparing different trial types using fMRI. Beginning in the late 1990s, researchers began using more complicated designs to look at multiple events within trials and to look at signals that transcended single trials. It is because of this latter ambition that the mixed block/event-related design (hereinafter, the mixed design) was developed. This design was a combination of the two major extant designs—the block

Identification of multiple temporal codings that suggest possibility/likelihood of ROIs performing separate/multiple processes that act over different timescales

At this point, in the early 2000s, the use of the mixed block/event-related fMRI design (Chawla et al., 1999, Donaldson et al., 2001) focused on the identification of separate trial-related activity and a sustained signal that persisted across an entire block. Fig. 1 demonstrates how the three fMRI design methods extract different signals from the BOLD activity. This distinction requires one to contemplate neural function associated with the modeled BOLD response differently than in both block

Results of interest

The mixed design has been used in a large number of studies over the intervening years since its inception. We make no pretense here to have an exhaustive review of these studies. Rather, we will focus on two areas that seem to have utilized these designs: the search for memory modes and the development of sustained versus transient activity. A third highlighted set of studies, one in which we have toiled significantly, is the use of these different signal types to define control systems. The

Conclusions

The mixed block/event-related design was developed to allow for simultaneous modeling of transient, trial-related and sustained, task-related BOLD signals. This advance from the block design and event-related design, respectively, resulted in researchers being able to look for BOLD signals related to task modes independent of the trials stimuli. While some areas of investigation (i.e. memory, development, and task control) have utilized the mixed design, its usage has not become widespread

Acknowledgements

Support for this research came from NIH grants NS37924 and NS06424, the McDonnell Foundation, and NIGMS grant T32 GM081739.

References (37)

Cited by (139)

  • A two-stage framework for neural processing of biological motion

    2022, NeuroImage
    Citation Excerpt :

    To tease apart the contributions of these differing types of information, we presented the walker in its original form (GLOBAL motion) and only the right foot of the walker (LOCAL motion). The biological motion discrimination task was designed under a mixed block/event-related framework (Petersen and Dubis, 2012), coupled with a two-alternative forced choice decision (2AFC) task (“which of two consecutive stimuli is closest to true biological motion?”), which is depicted in Fig. 1.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text