Back

Test-Retest Reliability of Dopaminergic fPET and fMRI Measures During Reward Processing

Schlosser, G. D.; Handschuh, P. A.; Murgas, M.; Graf, S.; Milz, C.; Klug, S.; Falb, P.; Schmidt, C.; Eggerstorfer, B.; Briem, E.; Mayerweg, A.; Artmeier, L.; Godbersen, G. M.; Nics, L.; Razul, S.; Hacker, M.; Hahn, A.; Lanzenberger, R.; Reed, M. B.

2025-11-04 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.11.03.686252 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reward processing is essential to human brain function, with dopamine signalling in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) as key element. The monetary incentive delay task is widely studied with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), measuring indirect hemodynamic changes. Functional positron emission tomography (fPET) with 6-[18F]FDOPA directly quantifies dopamine synthesis enabling dynamic assessment during task performance within a single scan. We investigated the reliability of 6-[18F]FDOPA fPET and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI during a modified monetary incentive delay task in 25 healthy participants across two PET/MRI sessions. Intraclass correlation coefficients and coefficients of variance were computed for BOLD beta estimates and striatal dopamine synthesis at 30s and 2s resolutions. fPET showed fair to good reliability in the NAcc and putamen at rest, fair reliability during the win condition in the caudate and putamen, but poor reliability across the loss condition in all regions. Conversely, fMRI showed good reliability in the NAcc during feedback and in the caudate during feedback loss, but fair reliability elsewhere except for poor reliability in the caudate during cue loss. These findings indicate that both methods achieve comparable reliability but in different target areas, with the molecular specificity of fPET offering dynamic assessment of dopaminergic function. Clinicaltrials.gov IdentifierNCT06675851

Published in NeuroImage (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.