Video-evoked fMRI BOLD responses are highly consistent across different data acquisition sites

Naturalistic imaging paradigms, in which participants view complex videos in the scanner, are increasingly used in human cognitive neuroscience. Videos evoke temporally synchronized brain responses that are similar across subjects as well as within subjects, but the reproducibility of these brain responses across different data acquisition sites has not yet been quantified. Here we characterize the consistency of brain responses across independent samples of participants viewing the same videos in fMRI scanners at different sites (Indiana University and Caltech). We compared brain responses collected at these different sites for two carefully matched datasets with identical scanner models, acquisition, and preprocessing details, along with a third unmatched dataset in which these details varied. Our overall conclusion is that for matched and unmatched datasets alike, video-evoked brain responses have high consistency across these different sites, both when compared across groups and across pairs of individuals. As one might expect, differences between sites were larger for unmatched datasets than matched datasets. Residual differences between datasets could in part reflect participant-level variability rather than scanner- or data-related effects. Altogether our results indicate promise for the development and, critically, generalization of video fMRI studies of individual differences in healthy and clinical populations alike.

[1]  H. Saarimäki Naturalistic Stimuli in Affective Neuroimaging: A Review , 2021, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

[2]  Annchen R. Knodt,et al.  Striving toward translation: strategies for reliable fMRI measurement , 2021, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  U. Hasson,et al.  The default mode network: where the idiosyncratic self meets the shared social world , 2021, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[4]  Yang Hu,et al.  Individualized psychiatric imaging based on inter-subject neural synchronization in movie watching , 2020, NeuroImage.

[5]  M. Milham,et al.  Towards clinical applications of movie fMRI , 2020, NeuroImage.

[6]  Luca Turella,et al.  Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams , 2019, Nature.

[7]  Michael Breakspear,et al.  Naturalistic Stimuli in Neuroscience: Critically Acclaimed , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  Fiona L. Weathersby,et al.  Generalizability and reproducibility of functional connectivity in autism , 2019, Molecular Autism.

[9]  Lisa Byrge,et al.  Nonreplication of functional connectivity differences in autism spectrum disorder across multiple sites and denoising strategies , 2019, bioRxiv.

[10]  Jonathan D. Power,et al.  Distinctions among real and apparent respiratory motions in human fMRI data , 2019, NeuroImage.

[11]  Samuel A. Nastase,et al.  Measuring shared responses across subjects using intersubject correlation , 2019, bioRxiv.

[12]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Editorial: Reliability and Reproducibility in Functional Connectomics , 2019, Front. Neurosci..

[13]  Monica D. Rosenberg,et al.  Relationships between depressive symptoms and brain responses during emotional movie viewing emerge in adolescence , 2019, NeuroImage.

[14]  Luke J. Chang,et al.  Endogenous variation in ventromedial prefrontal cortex state dynamics during naturalistic viewing reflects affective experience , 2018, Science Advances.

[15]  Lisa D. Nickerson,et al.  Replication of Resting State-Task Network Correspondence and Novel Findings on Brain Network Activation During Task fMRI in the Human Connectome Project Study , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[16]  F. Castellanos,et al.  Movies in the magnet: Naturalistic paradigms in developmental functional neuroimaging , 2018, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Saori C. Tanaka,et al.  Harmonization of resting-state functional MRI data across multiple imaging sites via the separation of site differences into sampling bias and measurement bias , 2018, bioRxiv.

[18]  Danielle S Bassett,et al.  Mitigating head motion artifact in functional connectivity MRI , 2018, Nature Protocols.

[19]  M. Weissman,et al.  Statistical harmonization corrects site effects in functional connectivity measurements from multi‐site fMRI data , 2018, Human brain mapping.

[20]  P. Bandettini,et al.  Trait paranoia shapes inter-subject synchrony in brain activity during an ambiguous social narrative , 2018, Nature Communications.

[21]  Lisa Byrge,et al.  Accurate prediction of individual subject identity and task, but not autism diagnosis, from functional connectomes , 2018, Human brain mapping.

[22]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  FMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI , 2018, Nature Methods.

[23]  R. Saxe,et al.  Development of the social brain from age three to twelve years , 2018, Nature Communications.

[24]  A. Holmes,et al.  The Myth of Optimality in Clinical Neuroscience , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Annchen R. Knodt,et al.  The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[26]  Vincent Frouin,et al.  The EU-AIMS Longitudinal European Autism Project (LEAP): design and methodologies to identify and validate stratification biomarkers for autism spectrum disorders , 2017, Molecular Autism.

[27]  Evan M. Gordon,et al.  Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex From Intrinsic Functional Connectivity MRI , 2017, bioRxiv.

[28]  Daniel P. Kennedy,et al.  Enhancing studies of the connectome in autism using the autism brain imaging data exchange II , 2017, Scientific Data.

[29]  Theo G. M. van Erp,et al.  Multisite reliability of MR-based functional connectivity , 2017, NeuroImage.

[30]  R. Cox,et al.  Untangling the relatedness among correlations, part I: Nonparametric approaches to inter-subject correlation analysis at the group level , 2016, NeuroImage.

[31]  Timothy O. Laumann,et al.  Evaluation of Denoising Strategies to Address Motion-Correlated Artifacts in Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data from the Human Connectome Project , 2016, Brain Connect..

[32]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing in Neuroimaging using MRI , 2016, bioRxiv.

[33]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research , 2016, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[34]  Hans Knutsson,et al.  Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  R. Adolphs,et al.  Building a Science of Individual Differences from fMRI , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database , 2016, Scientific Data.

[37]  Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski,et al.  MRIQC: Advancing the automatic prediction of image quality in MRI from unseen sites , 2016, bioRxiv.

[38]  Tapani Ristaniemi,et al.  The reliability of continuous brain responses during naturalistic listening to music , 2016, NeuroImage.

[39]  Daniel P. Kennedy,et al.  A specific hypoactivation of right temporo-parietal junction/posterior superior temporal sulcus in response to socially awkward situations in autism. , 2015, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[40]  Christine C. Guo,et al.  Out-of-sync: disrupted neural activity in emotional circuitry during film viewing in melancholic depression , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[41]  Ludovica Griffanti,et al.  Automatic denoising of functional MRI data: Combining independent component analysis and hierarchical fusion of classifiers , 2014, NeuroImage.

[42]  M. Sams,et al.  The brains of high functioning autistic individuals do not synchronize with those of others☆ , 2013, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[43]  K. Amunts,et al.  Individual variability is not noise , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[44]  Matthew J. McAuliffe,et al.  Sharing Heterogeneous Data: The National Database for Autism Research , 2012, Neuroinformatics.

[45]  Noah D. Brenowitz,et al.  Whole-brain, time-locked activation with simple tasks revealed using massive averaging and model-free analysis , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  D. Heeger,et al.  Reliability of cortical activity during natural stimulation , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  Uri Hasson,et al.  Shared and idiosyncratic cortical activation patterns in autism revealed under continuous real‐life viewing conditions , 2009, Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research.

[48]  J. Ruscio,et al.  A probability-based measure of effect size: robustness to base rates and other factors. , 2008, Psychological methods.

[49]  Brian B. Avants,et al.  Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: Evaluating automated labeling of elderly and neurodegenerative brain , 2008, Medical Image Anal..

[50]  Gary H. Glover,et al.  Reducing interscanner variability of activation in a multicenter fMRI study: Controlling for signal-to-fluctuation-noise-ratio (SFNR) differences , 2006, NeuroImage.

[51]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[52]  R. Malach,et al.  Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision , 2004, Science.

[53]  A. Vargha,et al.  A Critique and Improvement of the CL Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and Wong , 2000 .

[54]  K. Schmidt,et al.  Symmetric Gibbs measures , 1996, math/9604240.

[55]  L. Varga Bootstrap methods and their applications , 2022 .

[56]  H. Richardson Edinburgh Research Explorer Development of brain networks for social functions , 2022 .