Measuring brain function: how do fMRI scanners work?

In 1977, Dr. Raymond Damadian performed the first magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on a live human patient (Edelman, 2014). MRI is a non-invasive medical imaging technique producing detailed pictures of anatomical structures and physiological processes inside the body (McRobbie et al., 2017). MRI scans are considered safer than CT scans and PET scans as they do not involve X-rays or ionizing radiation

Instead, MRI scanners produce a strong magnetic field to force protons – which are abundant in water and fat – to line up with that field (Weishaupt et al., 2008). When the radiofrequency field is switched off, the MRI sensors detect the energy released by the protons as well as the time it takes them to realign with the magnetic field; these magnetic properties are in turn used by researchers to distinguish various tissues and detect abnormalities (Berger, 2002).

MRI scanners have become ubiquitous in neuroimaging research because of their versatility (Chen & Li, 2012). Beside high resolution anatomical pictures allowing researchers to study the brain’s structure, MRI scanners can produce rapid snapshots to observe brain activity. This technique, called functional MRI (fMRI), rests on the blood-oxygen-level dependence (BOLD) effect (Belliveau et al., 1991). The BOLD effect is based on the different magnetic properties of oxyhaemoglobin and deoxyhaemoglobin, which interact differently with the magnetic field produced by the MRI scanner (Ogawa & Lee, 1990; Logothetis, 2003). While oxyhaemoglobin is weakly diamagnetic, deoxyhaemoglobin is strongly paramagnetic; this allows researchers to distinguish both blood types on the resulting images and indirectly measure brain activity by looking for local changes in magnetism (Greve, 2011).

fMRI has been widely used to measure both the cognitive activities of the brain based either on an induced stimulus (Linden et al., 1999; Heeger & Ress, 2002) or when an explicit task is not being performed (Raichle et al., 2001; Fox & Raichle, 2007; Biswal, 2012). These two methods are respectively called task-based fMRI and resting state fMRI (Zhang et al., 2016). Because fMRI cannot produce individually quantitative signals, but only relative differences between two brain states (Langleben, 2008), task-based fMRI and resting-state fMRI are sometimes used in combination to minimise the signal-to-noise ratio in the resulting data (Di et al., 2013).

Task-based fMRI in particular has allowed researchers to confirm the connexion between cognitive functions and specific brain regions (Berman et al., 2006). For example, researchers posited that if two tasks lead to the activation of common brain areas, these tasks and related behaviours are likely to share some cognitive processes (Jonides et al., 2006). Conversely, Stroop tasks (Stroop, 1992) have been used in combination with fMRI to separate distinct psychological processes such as cognitive control and performance monitoring (MacDonald et al, 2000).

Task-based fMRI has also been used to understand neurological dysfunctions and diseases, for example by comparing the prefrontal cortical activity of subjects in normal aging with ones with mild cognitive impairment or suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (Li et al., 2009). All these applications of task-based fMRI are allowing researchers to progressively build an architecture of brain activity, psychological processes and cognitive behaviours.

Currently the most popular method to visualise the brain-behaviour and the structure-function and relationship (Glover, 2011), fMRI has many advantages such as high spatial resolution, a relatively affordable cost, and a low tolerance needed from the subject, which makes it an appropriate tool for both research and diagnostic (Mier & Mier, 2015). But it also has some limitations, including a medium temporal resolution, allowing researchers to only capture images every few seconds.

Researchers have attempted to achieve greater temporal resolution by integrating electroencephalography (EEG) and fMRI (Yang et al., 2010). EEG has low spatial resolution but directly measures the brain’s electrical activity, resulting in higher temporal resolution – in milliseconds rather than seconds (Burle et al, 2015).

Hover, the implementation of both techniques is challenging, and the future of fMRI research may instead lie in the development of quantitative measures to identity biomarkers for specific diseases, either by using group statistics for cognitive processes with weak BOLD responses, or by using direct measures for primary sensory systems resulting in strong BOLD responses (Glover, 2011). Another area of research that is gaining attention is the study of the brain’s resting state and how its networks are affected by neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression and Alzheimer’s disease (Greicius, M. 2008).


Belliveau, J. W., Kennedy, D. N., McKinstry, R. C., Buchbinder, B. R., Weisskoff, R., Cohen, M. S., … & Rosen, B. R. (1991). Functional mapping of the human visual cortex by magnetic resonance imaging. Science254(5032), 716-719.

Berger, A. (2002). How does it work?: Magnetic resonance imaging. BMJ: British Medical Journal324(7328), 35.

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Studying mind and brain with fMRI. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience1(2), 158-161.

Biswal, B. B. (2012). Resting state fMRI: a personal history. Neuroimage62(2), 938-944.

Burle, B., Spieser, L., Roger, C., Casini, L., Hasbroucq, T., & Vidal, F. (2015). Spatial and temporal resolutions of EEG: Is it really black and white? A scalp current density view. International Journal of Psychophysiology97(3), 210-220.

Chen, S., & Li, X. (2012). Functional magnetic resonance imaging for imaging neural activity in the human brain: the annual progress. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine2012.

Di, X., Gohel, S., Kim, E. H., & Biswal, B. B. (2013). Task vs. rest—different network configurations between the coactivation and the resting-state brain networks. Frontiers in human neuroscience7, 493.

Edelman, R. R. (2014). The history of MR imaging as seen through the pages of radiology. Radiology273(2S), S181-S200.

Fox, M. D., & Raichle, M. E. (2007). Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nature reviews neuroscience8(9), 700.

Glover, G. H. (2011). Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery Clinics22(2), 133-139.

Greicius, M. (2008). Resting-state functional connectivity in neuropsychiatric disorders. Current opinion in neurology21(4), 424-430.

Greve, J. M. (2011). The BOLD effect. In In vivo NMR Imaging(pp. 153-169). Humana Press.

Heeger, D. J., & Ress, D. (2002). What does fMRI tell us about neuronal activity?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience3(2), 142.

Jonides, J., Nee, D. E., & Berman, M. G. (2006). What has functional neuroimaging told us about the mind? So many examples, so little space. Cortex42(3), 414-417.

Langleben, D. D. (2008). Detection of deception with fMRI: Are we there yet?. Legal and Criminological Psychology13(1), 1-9.

Li, C., Zheng, J., Wang, J., Gui, L., & Li, C. (2009). An fMRI stroop task study of prefrontal cortical function in normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research6(6), 525-530.

Linden, D. E., Prvulovic, D., Formisano, E., Völlinger, M., Zanella, F. E., Goebel, R., & Dierks, T. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of target detection: an fMRI study of visual and auditory oddball tasks. Cerebral Cortex9(8), 815-823.

Logothetis, N. K. (2003). The underpinnings of the BOLD functional magnetic resonance imaging signal. Journal of Neuroscience23(10), 3963-3971.

MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science288(5472), 1835-1838.

McRobbie, D. W., Moore, E. A., Graves, M. J., & Prince, M. R. (2017). MRI from Picture to Proton. Cambridge university press, 1-5.

Mier, W., & Mier, D. (2015). Advantages in functional imaging of the brain. Frontiers in human neuroscience9, 249.

Ogawa, S., & Lee, T. M. (1990). Magnetic resonance imaging of blood vessels at high fields: in vivo and in vitro measurements and image simulation. Magnetic resonance in medicine16(1), 9-18.

Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98(2), 676-682.

Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General121(1), 15.

Weishaupt, D., Köchli, V. D., & Marincek, B. (2008). How does MRI work?: an introduction to the physics and function of magnetic resonance imaging. Springer Science & Business Media.

Yang, L., Liu, Z., & He, B. (2010). EEG-fMRI reciprocal functional neuroimaging. Clinical Neurophysiology121(8), 1240-1250.

Zhang, S., Li, X., Lv, J., Jiang, X., Guo, L., & Liu, T. (2016). Characterizing and differentiating task-based and resting state fMRI signals via two-stage sparse representations. Brain imaging and behavior10(1), 21-32.

Join 100,000 mindful makers!

Ness Labs is a weekly newsletter with science-based insights on creativity, mindful productivity, better thinking and lifelong learning.

One email a week, no spam, ever. See our Privacy policy.