Optimized Design and Analysis of Sparse-Sampling fMRI Experiments

Sparse-sampling is an important methodological advance in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), in which silent delays are introduced between MR volume acquisitions, allowing for the presentation of auditory stimuli without contamination by acoustic scanner noise and for overt vocal responses without motion-induced artifacts in the functional time series. As such, the sparse-sampling technique has become a mainstay of principled fMRI research into the cognitive and systems neuroscience of speech, language, hearing, and music. Despite being in use for over a decade, there has been little systematic investigation of the acquisition parameters, experimental design considerations, and statistical analysis approaches that bear on the results and interpretation of sparse-sampling fMRI experiments. In this report, we examined how design and analysis choices related to the duration of repetition time (TR) delay (an acquisition parameter), stimulation rate (an experimental design parameter), and model basis function (an analysis parameter) act independently and interactively to affect the neural activation profiles observed in fMRI. First, we conducted a series of computational simulations to explore the parameter space of sparse design and analysis with respect to these variables; second, we validated the results of these simulations in a series of sparse-sampling fMRI experiments. Overall, these experiments suggest the employment of three methodological approaches that can, in many situations, substantially improve the detection of neurophysiological response in sparse fMRI: (1) Sparse analyses should utilize a physiologically informed model that incorporates hemodynamic response convolution to reduce model error. (2) The design of sparse fMRI experiments should maintain a high rate of stimulus presentation to maximize effect size. (3) TR delays of short to intermediate length can be used between acquisitions of sparse-sampled functional image volumes to increase the number of samples and improve statistical power.

[1]  D. Hall,et al.  Reducing the effects of background noise during auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging of speech processing: qualitative and quantitative comparisons between two image acquisition schemes and noise cancellation. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Patti Adank,et al.  Design choices in imaging speech comprehension: An Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis , 2012, NeuroImage.

[3]  A R Palmer,et al.  Time‐course of the auditory BOLD response to scanner noise , 2000, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  A M Dale,et al.  Optimal experimental design for event‐related fMRI , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[5]  Alexis Roche,et al.  A Four-Dimensional Registration Algorithm With Application to Joint Correction of Motion and Slice Timing in fMRI , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  Peter A. Bandettini,et al.  Experimental designs and processing strategies for fMRI studies involving overt verbal responses , 2004, NeuroImage.

[7]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Event-Related fMRI of the Auditory Cortex , 1998, NeuroImage.

[8]  Klaus Scheffler,et al.  Enhancing BOLD response in the auditory system by neurophysiologically tuned fMRI sequence , 2006, NeuroImage.

[9]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[10]  Cathy J. Price,et al.  A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading , 2012, NeuroImage.

[11]  Lutz Jäncke,et al.  Reducing the Interval Between Volume Acquisitions Improves “Sparse” Scanning Protocols in Event-related Auditory fMRI , 2011, Brain Topography.

[12]  Deborah A. Hall,et al.  How challenges in auditory fMRI led to general advancements for the field , 2012, NeuroImage.

[13]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The variability of human BOLD hemodynamic responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[14]  John D E Gabrieli,et al.  Assessing the influence of scanner background noise on auditory processing. I. An fMRI study comparing three experimental designs with varying degrees of scanner noise , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[15]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[16]  M. Harms,et al.  Detection and quantification of a wide range of fMRI temporal responses using a physiologically‐motivated basis set , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[17]  Christian Schwarzbauer,et al.  Evaluating an acoustically quiet EPI sequence for use in fMRI studies of speech and auditory processing , 2010, NeuroImage.

[18]  T. Ernst,et al.  fMRI-acoustic noise alters brain activation during working memory tasks , 2005, NeuroImage.

[19]  Steve C R Williams,et al.  Acoustic noise and functional magnetic resonance imaging: Current strategies and future prospects , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[21]  P. Bandettini,et al.  Functional MRI of brain activation induced by scanner acoustic noise , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  J. Melcher,et al.  Isolating the auditory system from acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging: examination of noise conduction through the ear canal, head, and body. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Nikos K Logothetis,et al.  Optimizing the imaging of the monkey auditory cortex: sparse vs. continuous fMRI. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[24]  G. Glover,et al.  Assessing the influence of scanner background noise on auditory processing. II. An fMRI study comparing auditory processing in the absence and presence of recorded scanner noise using a sparse design , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[25]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study , 2008, NeuroImage.

[26]  Jos B. T. M. Roerdink,et al.  BOLD Noise Assumptions in fMRI , 2006, Int. J. Biomed. Imaging.

[27]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  Interleaved silent steady state (ISSS) imaging: A new sparse imaging method applied to auditory fMRI , 2006, NeuroImage.

[28]  Carrie J. Scarff,et al.  The effect of MR scanner noise on auditory cortex activity using fMRI , 2004, Human brain mapping.

[29]  John D E Gabrieli,et al.  Resting in peace or noise: Scanner background noise suppresses default‐mode network , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[30]  Dave R. M. Langers,et al.  Robustness of intrinsic connectivity networks in the human brain to the presence of acoustic scanner noise , 2011, NeuroImage.

[31]  Joshua Carp,et al.  The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature , 2012, NeuroImage.

[32]  Vincent L. Gracco,et al.  Imaging speech production using fMRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[33]  Wen-Ming Luh,et al.  Modeling hemodynamic responses in auditory cortex at 1.5 T using variable duration imaging acoustic noise , 2010, NeuroImage.

[34]  Peter Boesiger,et al.  Silent and continuous fMRI scanning differentially modulate activation in an auditory language comprehension task , 2008, Human brain mapping.

[35]  A. Dale,et al.  Selective averaging of rapidly presented individual trials using fMRI , 1997, Human brain mapping.

[36]  Peter Boesiger,et al.  Comparison of “silent” clustered and sparse temporal fMRI acquisitions in tonal and speech perception tasks , 2007, NeuroImage.

[37]  N. Kiang,et al.  Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[39]  Deborah A. Hall,et al.  Acoustic, psychophysical, and neuroimaging measurements of the effectiveness of active cancellation during auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL , 2004, NeuroImage.

[41]  R. Bowtell,et al.  “sparse” temporal sampling in auditory fMRI , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[42]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Cortical Surface-Based Analysis I. Segmentation and Surface Reconstruction , 1999, NeuroImage.

[43]  R. Weisskoff,et al.  Improved auditory cortex imaging using clustered volume acquisitions , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[44]  K Tschopp,et al.  Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is a Non-invasive Method for the Detection of Focal Brain Activity at High Spatial Resolution. Acoustic Stimulation Leads to a Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent , 2022 .

[45]  Bernhard Müller,et al.  Sparse imaging and continuous event‐related fMRI in the visual domain: A systematic comparison , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[46]  Dave R M Langers,et al.  Interactions between hemodynamic responses to scanner acoustic noise and auditory stimuli in functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.