Digital posters for ISMRM 2024

 

ISMRM announced proceedings of this year's scientific meeting on its website. The digital posters are now presented as an author-recorded video (in most cases, a power point with narration) in a common wrapper which contains links to section headings. This reduces the video screen size but helps audience keep track of the contents in context. Two such posters of mine are shown in screen captures above. Availability of remote participation was certainly accelerated by the pandemic, and may contribute to lower in-person attendance from regions far away. Good luck with all those who travel to Singapore in May!

DIANA questions, raised scientifically

 A first scientific counterargument against DIANA was published recently in an open-access journal: A different interpretation of the DIANA fMRI signal | Science Advances. The three main points are the following: (1) The authors did reproduce the original MRI data and therefore the original report by Toi et al. in Science is likely true on observed facts. (2) On the other hand, the authors could explain their own observations better without invoking neuronal response, but rather based on instrumental artifacts and coincidental circumstances. (3) Regarding membrane potential-induced T2 change, the authors believe that the originally reported in-vitro T2 change is rather caused by cell swelling than membrane potential. The authors did leave several questions unanswered that need to be answered in order to reconcile their assertion with the large amount of experimental data reported in Toi et al.

It is notable that the authors humbly titled their paper as "A different interpretation of DIANA fMRI" and showed reservation of judgment and desire to be constructive. The paper ends with a respectable remark, "Although the goal of probing neural activity with millisecond temporal resolution using fMRI remains unmet, we hope that the contribution of Toi et al. will inspire further efforts to achieve this ambitious and worthy objective."

The questions raised by this paper are certainly serious and substantial. But they were brought up in a way to allow professional debate and objective mutual verification. I hope this development, along with the growing body of positive data from Prof. Park's team, will soon bring clarity to this tantalizing DIANA puzzle.