Skip to main content


Effects of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments on brain functional magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: a critical review

Article metrics



A growing number of pharmacological and nonpharmacological trials have been performed to test the efficacy of approved or experimental treatments in Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In this context, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) may be a good candidate to detect brain changes after a short period of treatment.

Main body

This critical review aimed to identify and discuss the available studies that have tested the efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments in AD and MCI cases using task-based or resting-state fMRI measures as primary outcomes. A PubMed-based literature search was performed with the use of the three macro-areas: ‘disease’, ‘type of MRI’, and ‘type of treatment’. Each contribution was individually reviewed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Study limitations were systematically detected and critically discussed. We selected 34 pharmacological and 13 nonpharmacological articles. According to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, 40% of these studies were randomized but only a few described clearly the randomization procedure, 36% declared the blindness of participants and personnel, and only 21% reported the blindness of outcome assessment. In addition, 28% of the studies presented more than 20% drop-outs at short- and/or long-term assessments. Additional common shortcomings of the reviewed works were related to study design, patient selection, sample size, choice of outcome measures, management of drop-out cases, and fMRI methods.


There is an urgent need to obtain efficient treatments for AD and MCI. fMRI is powerful enough to detect even subtle changes over a short period of treatment; however, the soundness of methods should be improved to enable meaningful data interpretation.


Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disease and the most prevalent form of dementia [1]. There is an urgent need to identify effective treatments that may improve cognitive function in subjects with manifest or prodromal AD, and in people at risk of developing the disease, such as those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Currently there are two classes of drugs approved for the treatment of AD: the cholinesterase inhibitors, which are licensed for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD, and memantine for moderate-to-severe disease stages [2]. These treatments have been demonstrated to be able to slow down the course of the disease but they cannot modify progression nor prevent onset [2]. Although no new therapeutics have been approved for AD in over 10 years, a substantial number of compounds thought to reduce amyloid and/or tau deposition are currently being testing [2]. The growing social emergency represented by AD and the lack of medical treatments able to modify the disease course have kindled interest in nonpharmacological therapies, such as cognitive stimulation, aerobic physical exercise, music therapy, and diet, with the aim of optimizing cognitive and functional skills and improving patient quality of life [3].

Numerous clinical trials have been performed to explore the efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments on cognitive and/or behavioral symptoms in AD and MCI patients. In clinical trials, outcome measures are typically performance-based instruments or structured surveys of clinician/caregiver impression of change [4]. Although the efficacy of treatments for AD and MCI must ultimately be demonstrated using clinically meaningful outcome measures, such trials will likely require hundreds of patients studied for medium term periods [5]. Thus, surrogate markers of efficacy with less variability than clinical assessments are needed to reduce the number of subjects. These markers may also be particularly valuable in the early phase of drug development to detect a preliminary “signal of efficacy” over a shorter time period.

Given the growing body of evidence that alterations in synaptic function are present very early in the course of the neurodegenerative disease process [6, 7], functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been shown to be particularly useful for detecting early alterations in brain function and may be a critical marker for the detection of physiological changes over a short interval [8]. Specifically, fMRI may be valuable in evaluating acute and subacute effects of therapeutic interventions by showing how they modulate targeted circuits [9]. Using fMRI, the efficacy of treatments on brain function can be revealed by task-based or task-free (resting-state) approaches. By modeling cognitive paradigms, task-based fMRI explores cerebral functioning while the subject is performing specific activities that can mimic the actual difficulties occurring in daily life. A number of pioneering task-based fMRI studies have identified reduced activation in hippocampal and parahippocampal regions during episodic memory tasks in patients with AD [10,11,12,13] and, less consistently, both medial temporal lobe decreased and increased activation in patients with MCI [11, 12, 14,15,16,17,18]. In addition, resting-state fMRI has the potential to detect subtle functional abnormalities in brain networks supporting complex cognitive processes that are progressively impaired over the course of AD. At present, several studies of AD patients have demonstrated alterations of the default mode network (DMN) and other resting-state networks related to cognitive functions [19,20,21]. Compared to task-based approaches, resting-state imaging has the advantage of avoiding performance-related variability and is also less complicated to acquire and standardize [22].

The aim of this manuscript is to review studies that have tested pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments in AD and MCI patients by using task-based or resting-state fMRI measures as primary outcomes. Furthermore, from a critical point of view, we explore the factors that could act as bias while verifying the efficacy of a treatment. Finally, we offer practical suggestions that could be useful in future studies.


Formal literature review research

A formal literature review was conducted on Medline in two separate sections, one for pharmacological and the other for nonpharmacological studies. In all cases, the research was performed on relevant articles (and their references) published in peer-reviewed journals before 20 March 2017 and with the use of three macro-areas, such as ‘disease’, ‘type of MRI’, and ‘type of treatment’. The disease has been searched with the single term ‘mild cognitive impairment’ or ‘MCI’ in the title and abstract only; or with the Mesh term ‘Alzheimer’s disease’ or with the same single term in the title and abstract only. The type of MRI was searched with the single terms ‘functional MRI’ or ‘fMRI’ or ‘functional connectivity’.

Pharmacological studies

The type of treatment was searched with the Mesh term ‘Therapeutics’ or the single terms ‘treatment’ or ‘pharmacological treatment’. The final search line was the following: ((((((Alzheimer Disease[MeSH Term]) OR alzheimer's disease[Title/Abstract]) OR MCI[Title/Abstract]) OR mild cognitive impairment[Title/Abstract])) AND (((functional mri) OR fmri) OR functional connectivity)) AND (((Therapeutics[MeSH Term]) OR treatment) OR pharmacological treatment).

Nonpharmacological studies

The type of treatment was searched with the Mesh term ‘Physical Therapy Modalities’ or ‘Exercise Therapy’ or the single terms ‘physical therapy’ or ‘motor rehabilitation’ or ‘physical training’ or ‘physical therapy’ or ‘exercise training’ or ‘physical exercise’ or ‘cognitive exercise’ or ‘cognitive rehabilitation’. The final search line was the following: (((((("Alzheimer Disease"[Mesh]) OR alzheimer's disease[Title/Abstract]) OR MCI[Title/Abstract]) OR mild cognitive impairment[Title/Abstract])) AND (((functional mri) OR fmri) OR functional connectivity)) AND ((((((((((("Exercise Therapy"[Mesh]) OR "Physical Therapy Modalities"[Mesh]) OR physical exercise) OR exercise training) OR physical therapy) OR physical training) OR motor rehabilitation) OR cognitive exercise) OR cognitive rehabilitation) OR cognitive training) OR cognitive stimulation).

Critical review

Each original contribution was individually reviewed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias [23]. This tool provides criteria for judging the risk of bias in experimental designs testing the efficacy of treatments [23]. Each selected article was independently judged by two reviewers (EC and ES) according to seven categories: 1) random sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding of participants and personnel; 4) blinding of outcome assessment; 5) short-term incomplete outcome data; 6) long-term incomplete outcome data; 7) and selective reporting [23]. The assessment was achieved by assigning a judgment of ‘low risk’ of bias when bias was absent or considered unlikely to have altered the results, ‘high risk’ of bias when the potential for bias weakened confidence in the results, and ‘unclear risk’ when there was some doubt about the effect of bias on the results due to insufficient information. When no agreement was reached between the two reviewers, the specific article was further discussed with a third reviewer (FA) for a final judgment. Further technical biases were identified by the reviewers according to their expertise in neuroimaging, neurology, neuropsychology, and physiotherapy fields and were discussed in appropriate sessions.


Pharmacological studies

We obtained 1506 articles. Through title and/or abstract reading, we excluded review articles, articles that did not directly look at the treatment effect on fMRI measures, animal model studies, and articles written in non-English languages. We included 34 pharmacological studies (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Twelve studies were on MCI patients, 21 on AD patients (16 on mild AD, 4 on mild-to-moderate AD, 1 on moderate AD), and one included both mild AD and MCI cases. Twelve studies were randomized controlled trials while the others had a nonrandomized or an observational design.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of literature review process (pharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging studies)

Table 1 Detailed findings of pharmacological fMRI studies


As expected, the effect of acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors (AchEI) has been investigated in the majority of studies (82%), followed by levetiracetam (6%), memantine (3%), caffeine (3%), and Chinese medicines such as the Compound congrongyizhi and the Bushen capsules (6%). In general, treatments lasted from a day (acute) to 6 months. Only in one study did the authors observe the effect of the proposed treatment over 24 months. The adopted fMRI approach was: task-based fMRI in 74% of studies, using memory (44%, such as encoding, retrieval, recognition and/or matching tasks), visual attention (3%), visuospatial or spatial navigation (6%), N-back (18%), or semantic association paradigms (3%); resting-state fMRI in 23% of studies; and both resting-state fMRI and visual encoding paradigms in the remaining 3%. fMRI studies showed positive effects of cognitive enhancing drugs on brain activation during cognitive task performance or the resting state in patients with AD and MCI. Both acute and prolonged exposure to pharmacological therapies were associated with fMRI changes in AD-specific and non-AD regions. In the majority of the studies, these changes were in parallel with improved fMRI task performance and global cognition assessed with a formal neuropsychological assessment outside the scanner. However, due to the heterogeneity of pharmacological treatment, dosage, and cognitive paradigms used for fMRI tasks, a generalization of the results is challenging.

In mild AD, a single dose (3 mg) of rivastigmine [24, 25] or infusion of physostigmine [26, 27] compared to placebo were associated with a greater activation of the right precuneus and parahippocampal gyrus [26], bilateral fusiform cortex [25, 27], and prefrontal areas [24] during face-recognition memory paradigms, which correlated with improved task performance [24, 27]. Using a similar paradigm in mild-moderate AD, increased right fusiform gyrus was observed after 10 weeks of donepezil [28]. During a task assessing the auditory process of verbal memory in mild AD, the activity was increased in mild AD patients in the left temporal cortex, parahippocampal gyrus, and frontoparietal executive network, together with an increase of successfully retrieved trials after 6 weeks of donepezil [29, 30]. During a face-recognition task, both increased activation after acute (8 mg) and decreased activation after prolonged (5 days) galantamine exposure were observed in parahippocampal regions in mild AD [31]. In mild AD patients, 3 months of treatment with galantamine reduced the fMRI signal within the dorsal pathway during a location-matching test [32]. Most studies which investigated the effect of prolonged treatment exposure showed that mild AD patients “normalized” the fMRI activity to the level of controls at baseline in AD-crucial regions after about 20 weeks of donepezil [33], rivastigmine [34], and galantamine [35] treatments, in parallel with improved global cognition and task performance [33, 34]. However, not all studies found a correlation between fMRI changes and clinical improvement, e.g., McGeown et al. demonstrated a widespread pattern of decreased fMRI activity during semantic association and working memory tasks after 20 weeks of donepezil but higher accuracy in task performance was associated with increased recruitment in nontask-relevant regions [36]. Finally, fMRI changes were observed to be greater in AchEI “responders” [37].

In MCI patients, increased fMRI activity in hippocampus and parahippocampal regions were observed during a spatial navigation task after only 7 days of galantamine treatment [38] as well as during face encoding after 6 days exposure to the same therapy [39]. A stabilization of fMRI hippocampal activity (decreased to the level of healthy controls) during a memory recognition task was found after 2 weeks at low doses of levetiracetam, with parallel improvement in patient memory performance [40, 41]. During a face-recognition task, increased activation after acute (8 mg) and decreased activation after prolonged (5 days) galantamine exposure were observed in posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), superior parietal regions, and frontal cortex in MCI patients [31]. In MCI patients, better task performance, enhanced functional connectivity between the hippocampus and the fusiform face area during a face recognition fMRI task [42], and enhanced connectivity between the hippocampus and frontal and striatal regions during a verbal episodic encoding task [43] were observed after 3 months of treatment with donepezil. Increased inferior frontal fMRI activity was observed during face retrieval after 3 to 6 months of the same treatment [44]. Using working memory and location matching task paradigms in MCI patients, acute administration of caffeine [45], about 10 weeks of treatment with donepezil [46], 3 to 6 months of treatment with rivastigmine [47], and 3 months exposure to Compound Congrongyizhi Capsule [48] enhanced the functional activity in the frontoparietal pathway, with improved patient accuracy during the tasks [46].

Several resting-state fMRI studies reported increased functional connectivity after pharmacological treatments in mild-to-moderate AD patients. Increased connectivity was observed in the DMN [49], between the hippocampus and several cortical and subcortical regions [50], and between the PCC and prefrontal and parietal brain regions [51] after 3 months of donepezil, in parallel with an improvement in global cognitive scores [49,50,51]. In addition, increased resting-state connectivity was observed after 3 to 4 months of donepezil in non-DMN orbitofrontal [52] and dorsolateral prefrontal networks [53]. This effect was observed to be greater in apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers and to be present regardless of the kind of AchEI administered [54]. In mild-moderate AD, increased resting-state functional connectivity was also observed in the posterior and hippocampal DMN components after 12 months of galantamine [55] and in moderate-severe AD after 6 months of memantine [56]. Importantly, one study showed that 3 months of treatment with donepezil in mild AD cases was also associated with “restored”/stabilized hippocampal connectivity (i.e., decreased negative correlations) with cortical regions in the parietal, temporal, and frontal cortices [50]. In MCI patients, resting-state connectivity increased in the right precuneus within the DMN with parallel improvement in verbal and working memory after 24 months of treatment with Bushen capsules [57].

Although several studies showed both clinical and fMRI changes after pharmacological therapies (Table 1), none of them directly compared clinical and fMRI effect sizes in order to define the most powerful marker to monitor treatment efficacy.

Critical review

According to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, 12 studies (35%) were randomized but only one described clearly the randomization procedure and the allocation. Twelve studies (35%) declared the blindness of participants and personnel; for two studies (6%) this information was unclear, and the other 20 reports (59%) were unblinded. Five studies (15%) declared the blindness of outcome assessment; for 12 studies (35%) this information was unclear, and the other 17 (50%) were unblinded. Eleven studies (32%) presented more than 20% drop-outs at short- and/or long-term assessments leading to ‘high risk’ bias due to incomplete outcome data. All studies appropriately reported the primary and the secondary outcome measures of the investigation. A report of the final judgments for each selected article is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Judgments of articles according to the seven categories of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Positive marks denote low risk or no bias; negative marks denote high-risk bias; question marks denote unclear information. NA not applicable

Nonpharmacological studies

We obtained 777 articles and we excluded articles due to the same reasons reported above for the pharmacological studies. Two further articles were manually identified through the reference lists of the selected manuscripts. We included 13 nonpharmacological studies (Fig. 3 and Table 2), with 10 studies on MCI patients (five on cognitive-rehabilitation, three on physical rehabilitation, and two combined) and three on AD patients (two on cognitive-rehabilitation and one on combined cognitive-physical training—one on mild AD and two on mild-to-moderate AD). Seven studies were randomized controlled trials while the others had a nonrandomized or an observational design.

Fig. 3

Flowchart of literature review process (nonpharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging studies)

Table 2 Detailed findings of nonpharmacological fMRI studies


Studies on cognitive rehabilitation proposed different types of training such as verbal and visual encoding, retrieval and mnemonic association strategies, auditory-verbal discrimination, mindfulness, singing therapy, reality orientation exercises, and occupational/recreational therapy. Studies investigating the effects of physical therapy were based on aerobic and progressive resistance training. While physical training lasted usually about 3 months, the cognitive and combined approaches presented greater duration variability (from 2 weeks to 7 months). Overall, both MCI and AD patients took advantage from cognitive training while only MCI patients seemed to benefit from physical therapy. The adopted fMRI approaches were resting-state fMRI (23%), or task-based fMRI (77%) using memory paradigms such as encoding, retrieval, association, and discrimination tasks (54%), visuo-spatial attention (8%), and verbal paradigms (15%). Due to the intensity of the programs and/or the difficulty of the proposed fMRI tasks, most of these studies focused on MCI rather than AD patients. A summary of findings is difficult due to the heterogeneity of training and task selection. However, it emerges that cognitive, physical, or combined training are mainly associated with enhanced brain activity or connectivity in trained patients with concomitant improvement in specific cognitive functions.

The effects of cognitive rehabilitation have been assessed with fMRI tasks in the majority of studies. After 2 months of training on strategies for acquiring new information, mild AD patients showed an increased activity in the frontoparietal areas and insula during an unfamiliar face-name association task [58]. Using singing training for 6 months, an improvement on daily living activities, behavior, and reasoning in mild-moderate AD patients, together with fMRI increased activation of the angular and lingual gyri during a Karaoke task, were observed [59]. In MCI patients, after an intense program of encoding/retrieval memory training, increased recruitment of frontotemporal areas, basal ganglia, and cerebellum was observed during a memory-encoding task [60], and of frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital areas [61] and left hippocampus [62] during memory-association tasks. During the memory retrieval phase, in trained MCI patients, a specific relationship between the increased activity of the right inferior parietal lobule and the improved performance on verbal delayed recall was found [60]. After a 2-month computer-based program on auditory verbal discrimination, MCI patients showed increased activity in the left hippocampus during an auditory verbal task with a parallel improvement in memory performance as tested outside the scanner [63]. MCI patients showed an increased resting-state functional connectivity between the PCC and bilateral medial prefrontal cortex and between the PCC and left hippocampus after eight sessions of mindfulness-based stress reduction [64].

The effects of aerobic training have been assessed in MCI patients with both task-based and resting-state fMRI. After 3 months of moderate aerobic exercises, no specific effects on brain activations were observed using a semantic memory task [65], while an increased resting-state functional connectivity between the PCC and bilateral frontoparietal and temporal cortices, insula and cerebellum was observed in MCI cases [66]. An increased activity of the left caudate after regular high-intensity physical activity compared to low-intensity training was observed using a famous-name discrimination paradigm [67].

The efficacy of a combined (cognitive and physical) approach was investigated in three studies, which adopted multidimensional stimulation programs. In the first study, mild-moderate AD patients were involved in 30 training sessions [68]. After training, during a verbal fluency task, AD patients showed an increased recruitment of the bilateral superior temporal gyrus, right insula, and thalamus associated with improvement in global cognition [68]. In a second study, after a 7-month training, 113 MCI patients showed no specific training-related brain changes during a visuospatial attention task [69]. Finally, one study investigated the effect of 26 weeks of progressive resistance training and computerized cognitive training (CCT) in 100 MCI patients using resting-state fMRI [70]. Both trainings, as well as the combination of the two, were associated with changes in functional connectivity between the hippocampus, PCC, and frontotemporal regions [70]. Of note, increased connectivity between the hippocampus and left superior frontal cortex after CCT was associated with improved memory performance [70].

No study directly compared clinical and fMRI effect sizes in order to define the most powerful marker to monitor treatment efficacy.

Critical review

According to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, seven studies (54%) were randomized but only four described clearly the randomization procedure and none the allocation. Five studies (38%) stated the blindness of participants and personnel; for two studies (15%) this information was unclear, and the other 6 (47%) were unblinded. Five studies (38%) reported the blindness of outcome assessment; for three studies (24%) this information was unclear, and the other five (38%) were unblinded. Two studies (15%) presented more than 20% drop-outs at short- and/or long-term assessments. All studies but one appropriately reported the primary and the secondary outcome measures of the investigation. A report of the final judgments for each selected article is shown in Fig. 2.

Common shortcomings of the reviewed works were regarding study design, patient selection, sample size, choice of outcome measures, management of drop-out cases, and fMRI methods.

In the following discussion, we underline the strengths and limitations of the reviewed studies and provide suggestions to overcome these issues.


Patient selection, randomization, and allocation

The definition of the clinical population is a very critical point. Targets of the proposed treatments should be cases of prodromal or probable AD with a clinical diagnosis supported by biomarkers [71]. Over the last decades, the development of subject-selection strategies that strongly maximize the power of treatments by detecting target populations has been an important focus of large international studies such as the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative [71]. Abnormal tau and amyloid β42 cerebrospinal fluid levels, baseline MRI atrophy, and apolipoprotein E ε4 status have been used as successful stratification strategies [72] and should be applied to define an early clinical population, such as MCI, or at-risk asymptomatic subjects. However, only a few of the reviewed studies [24, 26, 27, 29, 30] used biomarkers in the inclusion process and, for some others, the clinical features of the MCI population (if it was amnesic for instance) were also unclear. While selecting the study sample, the lack of a neat clinical definition together with the absence of biomarkers leads to underpowered and diluted findings.

In most of the reviewed articles, the randomization procedure was not performed due to the observational nature of the study design and to the absence of a group of placebo or active healthy controls. Although these studies observed an effect of the proposed treatments on the outcome measures, the authors cannot argue for a specific efficacy of the treatment itself since it could be due to the mere nature of the clinical intervention. The absence of a control condition also leads to the unblinding of participants and personnel; this is an additional confounding factor that affects the soundness of methods. On the other hand, many works, which declare to have adopted a randomized study design, failed to clearly describe the procedure of the subject randomization and allocation or introduced some a priori bias (such as a priori stratification of the sample by gender [68] or the decision of a disproportionate ratio of the group distribution [47]) that may affect the neutral distribution of subjects in the experimental groups.

We have the following suggestions: 1) the population should be well-defined clinically and the AD diagnosis should be biomarker-supported; and 2) randomization and allocation must follow recognized guidelines and should be clearly reported in the study description.

Type, intensity, and duration of treatment

The persistence of effects, along with generalization of gain in everyday life, is the critical point of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. The need of a long-term treatment to maintain positive effects engenders the problem of the treatment costs. It is noteworthy that the selection of the type, intensity, and duration of treatment has the potential to modulate its efficacy. For instance, studies comparing the clinical and fMRI effects of pharmacological treatments directly targeting synapses versus other types of therapies (e.g., inhibitors of cholinesterase enzymes) are lacking. In the case of nonpharmacological interventions, the long-term potential of the combination of cognitive and motor rehabilitation has been amply postulated in neurodegenerative disorders [73]; however, only two reviewed studies [68, 70] adopted this combined approach demonstrating its effect on cognitive and behavioral improvement even after 22 weeks [68]. The success of this last-mentioned study is also attributable to the nature of the proposed training, which involved both patients and caregivers thus guarantying a continuous care at home [68]. Furthermore, the different efficacy based on intensity of training has been poorly considered. This is important since in other conditions, such as in Parkinson’s disease, training on alternate days has been demonstrated to be more efficient compared to an intense (everyday) approach [74].

We have the following suggestions: 1) the selection of the type, intensity and duration of treatment is relevant and can modulate the long-term effect of intervention; 2) studies comparing the clinical and fMRI effects of pharmacological treatments directly targeting synapses versus other types of therapies are needed; and 3) in nonpharmacological interventions, studies aimed at assessing the efficacy of the cognitive and motor training combination as well as at establishing the optimal intensity of treatment are warranted.

The choice of outcome measures

The main difficulty for these studies is to transfer outcome measures from the laboratory to real life. fMRI can contribute to this effort by identifying, through the task or using a resting-state approach, the brain regions or brain networks that are sensitive to treatment and that can predict the everyday activities for which treatment is likely to be effective.

However, building the proper fMRI task is challenging. First, cognitive fMRI experiments used to test behavioral longitudinal changes can be biased by learning effects, especially when the interval between pre- and post-treatment evaluation is short. The use of parallel versions of the same task avoids the detection of an improvement due to learning. In the majority of pharmacological studies, mainly the observational ones, the selected task is disease-driven, i.e., it has the aim to test the drug efficacy on cognitive domains known to be affected in AD such as episodic or semantic memory (encoding, recall, recognition, pair-association), visuo-spatial abilities, and auditory working memory. In the same way, when a resting-state approach is preferred, functional connectivity within the DMN, as the most affected network in AD, is usually the primary MRI outcome. Although this approach is understandable and driven by what we know about the AD pathology, it runs the risk of losing some important information on the treatment efficacy. With such disease-driven methods, mechanisms of compensation and brain reorganization in unaffected brain areas could not be captured. For this purpose, Dhanjal and Wise investigated the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on non-DMN networks, such as salience and executive-control networks, in a group of AD patients to determine whether improving memory function via modulation of frontoparietal connectivity was a possible compensative mechanism [30]. The same strategy can be adopted by task-related fMRI designs, by observing if the activity of nonmemory brain circuits, such as those subtending selective attention and/or distracter inhibition, could modulate the improvement of the encoding processing and the successful recall.

In nonpharmacological studies, the selected task is usually training-driven, i.e., it is built to verify improvement in activity in brain regions known to subtend the training-related functions. For instance, in the Explicit-Memory Training proposed by Hampstead and colleagues [61], patients acquired mnemonic strategies using face-name associations and the fMRI task used the same paradigm to test its efficacy. However, there are some studies using generic fMRI tasks (such as verbal fluency) as well as clinical outcome measures assessing global cognitive status which are not specific and/or unrelated to the performed training. The risk in these latter cases is to observe changes in fMRI activity unrelated to the training.

Finally, no study to date has directly compared clinical/cognitive versus fMRI outcome effect sizes (only the relationship between these variables has been assessed) in order to define which marker is the most powerful in reflecting treatment effects over time.

We have the following suggestions: 1) parallel versions of the same fMRI task are needed to avoid learning effects; 2) a whole brain fMRI investigation is necessary to have a complete understanding on the effect of treatment in the whole brain; 3) training-driven tasks rather than global and unspecific tests are suggested as outcome measures in nonpharmacological studies; and 4) clinical/cognitive versus fMRI effect size comparisons should be provided.

Incomplete outcomes, drop-out cases, and sample size

Incomplete outcome measures are often an important problem in these studies. The reasons for incomplete data or drop-outs are often related to the treatment itself (side-effects), but they could also be associated to the MRI environment (claustrophobia or difficulties lying down in the scanner during the entire duration of the protocol), technical MRI issues (motion artifacts or unrecorded behavioral performances during the task), patient difficulties in understanding and/or maintaining the task instructions, progression of the disease, changes in motivation, and lack of compliance. In aging and cognitive-impaired populations, cases of drop-out are frequent and should be considered during the recruitment phase by involving larger initial samples. In fact, if not considered, the consequences on the research protocol can be severe resulting in a reduction in the study power. For instance, Bokde and colleagues [47] enrolled 12 MCI patients in their trial and randomly assigned them to treated and placebo groups with a 2:3 ratio, respectively. Due to several drop-out cases, the placebo group finally included only two subjects and the analysis within this group was not statistically feasible [47]. Furthermore, negative findings are questionable in cases of a small sample size; for example, McGeown and colleagues [36] who reported no efficacy of 20 weeks of treatment with donepezil in a group of 12 AD patients on task-related fMRI activity and on behavioral performances.

By using a semi-cylindrical panel covering the patient’s body from the head to the knees (simulating the limited space in the scanner) together with a loud white noise through headphones (mimicking the noise of the scanner), Lorenzi and colleagues [56] performed a 9-min fMRI scan simulation during patient screening. This simple system tested the patient’s ability to rest, without moving, in an ‘unusual’ environment for the entire scan acquisition, thereby ensuring patient comfort and data quality. This simulation was useful for testing the patient tolerability to the MRI noise and environment, and for detecting the presence of claustrophobia and other behavioral complaints, such as agitation and anxiety, not identified during the interview with the caregiver but triggered during this ‘unusual’ situation. After the MRI simulation, 12 out of 28 moderate-to-severe AD patients did not pass the screening while the remaining all but one were successfully acquired and completed the study [56]. In addition, for some patients, task instructions could be difficult to understand and/or maintained during the sequence. Cognitive difficulties are likely to affect patient behavioral performances during the acquisition, and the fMRI signal could reflect a pattern unrelated to the investigated domain. A bias mitigation action could be to train the patient for several sessions prior to the MRI scan in order to assess task instruction comprehension and maintaining.

Finally, patient and caregiver motivation are also crucial for the success of the clinical trials. In the study of Baglio and colleagues [68], patients and caregivers underwent a multidimensional stimulation group therapy, which included 30 training sessions for the patient and an educational program to the caregiver to favor a long-term positive interaction with patients at home. The involvement of the caregivers was highly motivating with more than 80% of the initially recruited population still being part of the study at the 32-week clinical follow-up. However, in the same study, the fMRI part was apparently less ‘appealing’ since only 55% of the initial sample concluded the follow-up at week 10.

We have the following suggestions: 1) the statistical power of the study must be estimated, and larger samples should be recruited accounting for the attrition rate—multicenter collaborations could be an option to mitigate this issue; 2) results should be validated and tested using independent data; 3) simulations of MRI examination should be included in the patient screening phase for detecting cases of claustrophobia, behavioral complaints, or difficulties in lying down in the scanner; and 4) caregivers should get involved as much as possible in the study to increase patient compliance.

Some MRI technical issues

Longitudinal MRI studies require monitoring of MRI data stability over time. The same MRI scanner should be used for all subjects for the entire duration of the study. The reproducibility of fMRI signal changes in young and old healthy individuals and in cognitively impaired subjects during memory tasks and resting state fMRI is only modest [75,76,77,78]. Thus, the MRI signal should be verified using pre- and postreproducibility studies. In this review, we noticed that only a few studies proposed two pretraining MRI scan sessions [29, 30, 60]. This is a key method for distinguishing brain changes related to repetition (a mere test-retest effect) from those associated with treatment or training. Unfortunately, the same studies [29, 30, 60] did not include control conditions, thus the test-retest study did not help to understand whether brain changes were specific to the treatment or training. Although a direct comparison between task-based and resting-state fMRI reproducibility has not been tested in any of the reviewed studies, the literature suggests that resting-state fMRI is more advantageous to provide reproducible patterns of fMRI connectivity over time and across scanner platforms since no special equipment is required and individuals do not have to be able to perform a cognitive task [79].

AD and MCI patients are known to have brain atrophy. However, only a few studies investigated cortical atrophy [27, 33, 45, 52], and only one study accounted for gray matter volume into the second-level fMRI analysis [55]. Partial volume effects can lead to a wrong interpretation of greater fMRI intensity in voxels with smaller proportions of gray matter with the risk of affecting group comparisons [80].

We have the following suggestions: 1) the same MRI scanner should be used for the entire duration of the study, and the stability of the MRI signal should be verified using pre/postreproducibility studies; and 2) second level analyses should take into account gray matter density at the voxel level.


This critical review pointed at both strengths and caveats of the existing literature on the effects of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments on brain fMRI in AD and MCI. In general, although both task-based and resting-state fMRI have been valuable in detecting even subtle changes over a short period of treatment, current knowledge does not allow us to support fMRI as a suitable candidate outcome measure. Although a large amount of work has been done so far, there is an urgent need to increase the number and ameliorate the reliability of the studies by improving the soundness of the methods. We underline the importance of sample size and patient selection for increasing the statistical power, the need for validation and testing (using independent data), the appropriateness of the study design, and the ecological value of the interventions to increase the likelihood of transferability into daily life, and whole brain investigation in order to capture both pathological and compensatory mechanisms. Finally, existing literature suggests we care about the motivation of patients and caregivers in order to avoid drop-outs during the follow-up. Future larger studies with improved design will allow us to perform a meta-analysis, which is the best approach for providing conclusive information on fMRI as a relevant outcome measure.



Acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors


Alzheimer’s disease


Computerized cognitive training


Default mode network


Functional magnetic resonance imaging


Mild cognitive impairment


Magnetic resonance imaging


Posterior cingulate cortex


  1. 1.

    Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, Wimo A, Ribeiro W, Ferri CP. The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9:63–75. e62

  2. 2.

    O'Brien JT, Holmes C, Jones M, Jones R, Livingston G, McKeith I, Mittler P, Passmore P, Ritchie C, Robinson L, Sampson EL, Taylor JP, Thomas A, Burns A. Clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs: a revised (third) consensus statement from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2017;31:147–68.

  3. 3.

    Raggi A, Tasca D, Ferri R. A brief essay on non-pharmacological treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Rev Neurosci. 2017;28:587-97.

  4. 4.

    McGhee DJ, Ritchie CW, Zajicek JP, Counsell CE. A review of clinical trial designs used to detect a disease-modifying effect of drug therapy in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:92.

  5. 5.

    Dickerson BC, Sperling RA. Neuroimaging biomarkers for clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease. NeuroRx. 2005;2:348–60.

  6. 6.

    Coleman P, Federoff H, Kurlan R. A focus on the synapse for neuroprotection in Alzheimer disease and other dementias. Neurology. 2004;63:1155–62.

  7. 7.

    Selkoe DJ. Alzheimer's disease is a synaptic failure. Science. 2002;298:789–91.

  8. 8.

    Agosta F, Galantucci S, Filippi M. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging of neurodegenerative diseases. Neurol Sci. 2017;38:41–51.

  9. 9.

    Hampel H, Lista S, Teipel SJ, Garaci F, Nistico R, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Bertram L, Duyckaerts C, Bakardjian H, Drzezga A, Colliot O, Epelbaum S, Broich K, Lehericy S, Brice A, Khachaturian ZS, Aisen PS, Dubois B. Perspective on future role of biological markers in clinical therapy trials of Alzheimer's disease: a long-range point of view beyond 2020. Biochem Pharmacol. 2014;88:426–49.

  10. 10.

    Kato T, Knopman D, Liu H. Dissociation of regional activation in mild AD during visual encoding: a functional MRI study. Neurology. 2001;57:812–6.

  11. 11.

    Machulda MM, Ward HA, Borowski B, Gunter JL, Cha RH, O'Brien PC, Petersen RC, Boeve BF, Knopman D, Tang-Wai DF, Ivnik RJ, Smith GE, Tangalos EG, Jack CR Jr. Comparison of memory fMRI response among normal, MCI, and Alzheimer's patients. Neurology. 2003;61:500–6.

  12. 12.

    Small SA, Perera GM, DeLaPaz R, Mayeux R, Stern Y. Differential regional dysfunction of the hippocampal formation among elderly with memory decline and Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 1999;45:466–72.

  13. 13.

    Sperling RA, Bates JF, Chua EF, Cocchiarella AJ, Rentz DM, Rosen BR, Schacter DL, Albert MS. fMRI studies of associative encoding in young and elderly controls and mild Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:44–50.

  14. 14.

    Dickerson BC, Salat DH, Bates JF, Atiya M, Killiany RJ, Greve DN, Dale AM, Stern CE, Blacker D, Albert MS, Sperling RA. Medial temporal lobe function and structure in mild cognitive impairment. Ann Neurol. 2004;56:27–35.

  15. 15.

    Dickerson BC, Salat DH, Greve DN, Chua EF, Rand-Giovannetti E, Rentz DM, Bertram L, Mullin K, Tanzi RE, Blacker D, Albert MS, Sperling RA. Increased hippocampal activation in mild cognitive impairment compared to normal aging and AD. Neurology. 2005;65:404–11.

  16. 16.

    Hamalainen A, Pihlajamaki M, Tanila H, Hanninen T, Niskanen E, Tervo S, Karjalainen PA, Vanninen RL, Soininen H. Increased fMRI responses during encoding in mild cognitive impairment. Neurobiol Aging. 2007;28:1889–903.

  17. 17.

    Kircher TT, Weis S, Freymann K, Erb M, Jessen F, Grodd W, Heun R, Leube DT. Hippocampal activation in patients with mild cognitive impairment is necessary for successful memory encoding. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:812–8.

  18. 18.

    Petrella JR, Krishnan S, Slavin MJ, Tran TT, Murty L, Doraiswamy PM. Mild cognitive impairment: evaluation with 4-T functional MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;240:177–86.

  19. 19.

    Agosta F, Pievani M, Geroldi C, Copetti M, Frisoni GB, Filippi M. Resting state fMRI in Alzheimer's disease: beyond the default mode network. Neurobiol Aging. 2012;33:1564–78.

  20. 20.

    Badhwar A, Tam A, Dansereau C, Orban P, Hoffstaedter F, Bellec P. Resting-state network dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2017;8:73–85.

  21. 21.

    Greicius MD, Srivastava G, Reiss AL, Menon V. Default-mode network activity distinguishes Alzheimer's disease from healthy aging: evidence from functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:4637–42.

  22. 22.

    Fleisher AS, Sherzai A, Taylor C, Langbaum JB, Chen K, Buxton RB. Resting-state BOLD networks versus task-associated functional MRI for distinguishing Alzheimer's disease risk groups. Neuroimage. 2009;47:1678–90.

  23. 23.

    Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from

  24. 24.

    Miettinen PS, Pihlajamaki M, Jauhiainen AM, Tarkka IM, Grohn H, Niskanen E, Hanninen T, Vanninen R, Soininen H. Effect of cholinergic stimulation in early Alzheimer's disease—functional imaging during a recognition memory task. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2011;8:753–64.

  25. 25.

    Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Van Meel CS, Scheltens P. Alterations in brain activation during cholinergic enhancement with rivastigmine in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73:665–71.

  26. 26.

    Bentley P, Driver J, Dolan RJ. Cholinesterase inhibition modulates visual and attentional brain responses in Alzheimer's disease and health. Brain. 2008;131:409–24.

  27. 27.

    Bentley P, Driver J, Dolan RJ. Modulation of fusiform cortex activity by cholinesterase inhibition predicts effects on subsequent memory. Brain. 2009;132:2356–71.

  28. 28.

    Kircher TT, Erb M, Grodd W, Leube DT. Cortical activation during cholinesterase-inhibitor treatment in Alzheimer disease: preliminary findings from a pharmaco-fMRI study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;13:1006–13.

  29. 29.

    Dhanjal NS, Warren JE, Patel MC, Wise RJ. Auditory cortical function during verbal episodic memory encoding in Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:294–302.

  30. 30.

    Dhanjal NS, Wise RJ. Frontoparietal cognitive control of verbal memory recall in Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 2014;76:241–51.

  31. 31.

    Goekoop R, Scheltens P, Barkhof F, Rombouts SA. Cholinergic challenge in Alzheimer patients and mild cognitive impairment differentially affects hippocampal activation—a pharmacological fMRI study. Brain. 2006;129:141–57.

  32. 32.

    Bokde AL, Karmann M, Teipel SJ, Born C, Lieb M, Reiser MF, Moller HJ, Hampel H. Decreased activation along the dorsal visual pathway after a 3-month treatment with galantamine in mild Alzheimer disease: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:147–56.

  33. 33.

    Thiyagesh SN, Farrow TF, Parks RW, Accosta-Mesa H, Hunter MD, Young C, Wilkinson ID, Woodruff PW. Treatment effects of therapeutic cholinesterase inhibitors on visuospatial processing in Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal functional MRI study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;29:176–88.

  34. 34.

    McGeown WJ, Shanks MF, Venneri A. Prolonged cholinergic enrichment influences regional cortical activation in early Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008;4:465–76.

  35. 35.

    Shanks MF, McGeown WJ, Forbes-McKay KE, Waiter GD, Ries M, Venneri A. Regional brain activity after prolonged cholinergic enhancement in early Alzheimer's disease. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:848–59.

  36. 36.

    McGeown WJ, Shanks MF, Forbes-McKay KE, Waiter GD, Elrick I, Venneri MG, Venneri A. Established donepezil treatment modulates task relevant regional brain activation in early Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7:415–27.

  37. 37.

    Venneri A, McGeown WJ, Shanks MF. Responders to ChEI treatment of Alzheimer's disease show restitution of normal regional cortical activation. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2009;6:97–111.

  38. 38.

    Gron G, Brandenburg I, Wunderlich AP, Riepe MW. Inhibition of hippocampal function in mild cognitive impairment: targeting the cholinergic hypothesis. Neurobiol Aging. 2006;27:78–87.

  39. 39.

    Goekoop R, Rombouts SA, Jonker C, Hibbel A, Knol DL, Truyen L, Barkhof F, Scheltens P. Challenging the cholinergic system in mild cognitive impairment: a pharmacological fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2004;23:1450–9.

  40. 40.

    Bakker A, Albert MS, Krauss G, Speck CL, Gallagher M. Response of the medial temporal lobe network in amnestic mild cognitive impairment to therapeutic intervention assessed by fMRI and memory task performance. Neuroimage Clin. 2015;7:688–98.

  41. 41.

    Bakker A, Krauss GL, Albert MS, Speck CL, Jones LR, Stark CE, Yassa MA, Bassett SS, Shelton AL, Gallagher M. Reduction of hippocampal hyperactivity improves cognition in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuron. 2012;74:467–74.

  42. 42.

    Pa J, Berry AS, Compagnone M, Boccanfuso J, Greenhouse I, Rubens MT, Johnson JK, Gazzaley A. Cholinergic enhancement of functional networks in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Ann Neurol. 2013;73:762–73.

  43. 43.

    Risacher SL, Wang Y, Wishart HA, Rabin LA, Flashman LA, McDonald BC, West JD, Santulli RB, Saykin AJ. Cholinergic enhancement of brain activation in mild cognitive impairment during episodic memory encoding. Front Psych. 2013;4:105.

  44. 44.

    Petrella JR, Prince SE, Krishnan S, Husn H, Kelley L, Doraiswamy PM. Effects of donepezil on cortical activation in mild cognitive impairment: a pilot double-blind placebo-controlled trial using functional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:411–6.

  45. 45.

    Haller S, Montandon ML, Rodriguez C, Moser D, Toma S, Hofmeister J, Sinanaj I, Lovblad KO, Giannakopoulos P. Acute caffeine administration effect on brain activation patterns in mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;41:101–12.

  46. 46.

    Saykin AJ, Wishart HA, Rabin LA, Flashman LA, McHugh TL, Mamourian AC, Santulli RB. Cholinergic enhancement of frontal lobe activity in mild cognitive impairment. Brain. 2004;127:1574–83.

  47. 47.

    Bokde AL, Cavedo E, Lopez-Bayo P, Lista S, Meindl T, Born C, Galluzzi S, Faltraco F, Dubois B, Teipel SJ, Reiser M, Moller HJ, Hampel H. Effects of rivastigmine on visual attention in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: a serial functional MRI activation pilot-study. Psychiatry Res. 2016;249:84–90.

  48. 48.

    Zhang J, Wang Z, Xu S, Chen Y, Chen K, Liu L, Wang Y, Guo R, Zhang Z. The effects of CCRC on cognition and brain activity in aMCI patients: a pilot placebo controlled BOLD fMRI study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2014;11:484–93.

  49. 49.

    Sole-Padulles C, Bartres-Faz D, Llado A, Bosch B, Pena-Gomez C, Castellvi M, Rami L, Bargallo N, Sanchez-Valle R, Molinuevo JL. Donepezil treatment stabilizes functional connectivity during resting state and brain activity during memory encoding in Alzheimer's disease. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013;33:199–205.

  50. 50.

    Goveas JS, Xie C, Ward BD, Wu Z, Li W, Franczak M, Jones JL, Antuono PG, Li SJ. Recovery of hippocampal network connectivity correlates with cognitive improvement in mild Alzheimer's disease patients treated with donepezil assessed by resting-state fMRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:764–73.

  51. 51.

    Li W, Antuono PG, Xie C, Chen G, Jones JL, Ward BD, Franczak MB, Goveas JS, Li SJ. Changes in regional cerebral blood flow and functional connectivity in the cholinergic pathway associated with cognitive performance in subjects with mild Alzheimer's disease after 12-week donepezil treatment. Neuroimage. 2012;60:1083–91.

  52. 52.

    Griffanti L, Wilcock GK, Voets N, Bonifacio G, Mackay CE, Jenkinson M, Zamboni G. Donepezil enhances frontal functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease: a pilot study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2016;6:518–28.

  53. 53.

    Zaidel L, Allen G, Cullum CM, Briggs RW, Hynan LS, Weiner MF, McColl R, Gopinath KS, McDonald E, Rubin CD. Donepezil effects on hippocampal and prefrontal functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease: preliminary report. J Alzheimers Dis. 2012;31(Suppl 3):S221–6.

  54. 54.

    Wang L, Day J, Roe CM, Brier MR, Thomas JB, Benzinger TL, Morris JC, Ances BM. The effect of APOE epsilon4 allele on cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with Alzheimer disease: evaluation of the feasibility of resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2014;28:122–7.

  55. 55.

    Blautzik J, Keeser D, Paolini M, Kirsch V, Berman A, Coates U, Reiser M, Teipel SJ, Meindl T. Functional connectivity increase in the default-mode network of patients with Alzheimer's disease after long-term treatment with galantamine. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;26:602–13.

  56. 56.

    Lorenzi M, Beltramello A, Mercuri NB, Canu E, Zoccatelli G, Pizzini FB, Alessandrini F, Cotelli M, Rosini S, Costardi D, Caltagirone C, Frisoni GB. Effect of memantine on resting state default mode network activity in Alzheimer's disease. Drugs Aging. 2011;28:205–17.

  57. 57.

    Zhang J, Liu Z, Zhang H, Yang C, Li H, Li X, Chen K, Zhang Z. A two-year treatment of amnestic mild cognitive impairment using a compound Chinese medicine: a placebo controlled randomized trial. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28982.

  58. 58.

    van Paasschen J, Clare L, Yuen KS, Woods RT, Evans SJ, Parkinson CH, Rugg MD, Linden DE. Cognitive rehabilitation changes memory-related brain activity in people with Alzheimer disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:448–59.

  59. 59.

    Satoh M, Yuba T, Tabei K, Okubo Y, Kida H, Sakuma H, Tomimoto H. Music therapy using singing training improves psychomotor speed in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a neuropsychological and fMRI study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2015;5:296–308.

  60. 60.

    Belleville S, Clement F, Mellah S, Gilbert B, Fontaine F, Gauthier S. Training-related brain plasticity in subjects at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2011;134:1623–34.

  61. 61.

    Hampstead BM, Stringer AY, Stilla RF, Deshpande G, Hu X, Moore AB, Sathian K. Activation and effective connectivity changes following explicit-memory training for face-name pairs in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:210–22.

  62. 62.

    Hampstead BM, Stringer AY, Stilla RF, Giddens M, Sathian K. Mnemonic strategy training partially restores hippocampal activity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Hippocampus. 2012;22:1652–8.

  63. 63.

    Rosen AC, Sugiura L, Kramer JH, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Gabrieli JD. Cognitive training changes hippocampal function in mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;26(Suppl 3):349–57.

  64. 64.

    Wells RE, Yeh GY, Kerr CE, Wolkin J, Davis RB, Tan Y, Spaeth R, Wall RB, Walsh J, Kaptchuk TJ, Press D, Phillips RS, Kong J. Meditation's impact on default mode network and hippocampus in mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Neurosci Lett. 2013;556:15–9.

  65. 65.

    Smith JC, Nielson KA, Antuono P, Lyons JA, Hanson RJ, Butts AM, Hantke NC, Verber MD. Semantic memory functional MRI and cognitive function after exercise intervention in mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;37:197–215.

  66. 66.

    Chirles TJ, Reiter K, Weiss LR, Alfini AJ, Nielson KA, Smith JC. Exercise training and functional connectivity changes in mild cognitive impairment and healthy elders. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;57:845–56.

  67. 67.

    Smith JC, Nielson KA, Woodard JL, Seidenberg M, Verber MD, Durgerian S, Antuono P, Butts AM, Hantke NC, Lancaster MA, Rao SM. Does physical activity influence semantic memory activation in amnestic mild cognitive impairment? Psychiatry Res. 2011;193:60–2.

  68. 68.

    Baglio F, Griffanti L, Saibene FL, Ricci C, Alberoni M, Critelli R, Villanelli F, Fioravanti R, Mantovani F, D'Amico A, Cabinio M, Preti MG, Nemni R, Farina E. Multistimulation group therapy in Alzheimer's disease promotes changes in brain functioning. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:13–24.

  69. 69.

    Train the Brain C. Randomized trial on the effects of a combined physical/cognitive training in aged MCI subjects: the Train the Brain study. Sci Rep. 2017;7:39471.

  70. 70.

    Suo C, Singh MF, Gates N, Wen W, Sachdev P, Brodaty H, Saigal N, Wilson GC, Meiklejohn J, Singh N, Baune BT, Baker M, Foroughi N, Wang Y, Mavros Y, Lampit A, Leung I, Valenzuela MJ. Therapeutically relevant structural and functional mechanisms triggered by physical and cognitive exercise. Mol Psychiatry. 2016;21:1645.

  71. 71.

    Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Cedarbaum J, Donohue MC, Green RC, Harvey D, Jack CR Jr, Jagust W, Morris JC, Petersen RC, Saykin AJ, Shaw L, Thompson PM, Toga AW, Trojanowski JQ. Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging I, impact of the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative, 2004 to 2014. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11:865–84.

  72. 72.

    Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Cedarbaum J, Green RC, Harvey D, Jack CR, Jagust W, Luthman J, Morris JC, Petersen RC, Saykin AJ, Shaw L, Shen L, Schwarz A, Toga AW, Trojanowski JQ. Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging I, 2014 update of the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative: a review of papers published since its inception. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11:e1–120.

  73. 73.

    Fritz NE, Cheek FM, Nichols-Larsen DS. Motor-cognitive dual-task training in persons with neurologic disorders: a systematic review. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2015;39:142–53.

  74. 74.

    Abbruzzese G, Avanzino L, Marchese R, Pelosin E. Action observation and motor imagery: innovative cognitive tools in the rehabilitation of Parkinson's disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2015;2015:124214.

  75. 75.

    Clement F, Belleville S. Test-retest reliability of fMRI verbal episodic memory paradigms in healthy older adults and in persons with mild cognitive impairment. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30:4033–47.

  76. 76.

    Meindl T, Teipel S, Elmouden R, Mueller S, Koch W, Dietrich O, Coates U, Reiser M, Glaser C. Test-retest reproducibility of the default-mode network in healthy individuals. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010;31:237–46.

  77. 77.

    Putcha D, O'Keefe K, LaViolette P, O'Brien J, Greve D, Rentz DM, Locascio J, Atri A, Sperling R. Reliability of functional magnetic resonance imaging associative encoding memory paradigms in non-demented elderly adults. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011;32:2027–44.

  78. 78.

    Zuo XN, Kelly C, Adelstein JS, Klein DF, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Reliable intrinsic connectivity networks: test-retest evaluation using ICA and dual regression approach. Neuroimage. 2010;49:2163–77.

  79. 79.

    Barkhof F, Haller S, Rombouts SA. Resting-state functional MR imaging: a new window to the brain. Radiology. 2014;272:29–49.

  80. 80.

    Di X, Kannurpatti SS, Rypma B, Biswal BB. Calibrating BOLD fMRI activations with neurovascular and anatomical constraints. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23:255–63.

Download references


Not applicable.



Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author information

EC: study concept/design, critical review of literature/interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript for content, and final approval of the version to be submitted. ES: study concept/design, critical review of literature/interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript for content, and final approval of the version to be submitted. MF: study concept/design, interpretation of data; revising the manuscript for content, study supervision and coordination, obtaining funding, and final approval of the version to be submitted. FA: study concept/design, interpretation of data, revising the manuscript for content, and final approval of the version to be submitted.

Correspondence to Federica Agosta.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information

EC: MSc, PhD with background in neuropsychology and neuroimaging.

ES: PT with background in clinical physiotherapy and neuroimaging.

MF: MD, FEAN with background in clinical neurology and neuroimaging.

FA: MD, PhD with background in clinical neurology and neuroimaging.

All authors have specific training and expertise in MRI and neurodegenerative diseases.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

EC has received research support from the Italian Ministry of Health; MF is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Neurology; serves on a scientific advisory board for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; has received compensation for consulting services and/or speaking activities from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, EXCEMED, Merck Serono, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries; and receives research support from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, Cure PSP, Alzheimer’s and Drug Discovery Foundation, and the Jacques and Gloria Gossweiler Foundation (Switzerland); FA is a Section Editor for NeuroImage: Clinical; has received speaker honoraria from EXCEMED—Excellence in Medical Education and Biogen Idec; and receives research supports from the Italian Ministry of Health, AriSLA (Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per la SLA), and the European Research Council. ES declares that she has no competing interests.

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 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Canu, E., Sarasso, E., Filippi, M. et al. Effects of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments on brain functional magnetic resonance imaging in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: a critical review. Alz Res Therapy 10, 21 (2018) doi:10.1186/s13195-018-0347-1

Download citation


  • Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
  • Mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
  • Pharmacological treatments
  • Nonpharmacological treatments
  • Functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
  • Training
  • Cognition