Improving the Accuracy of Non-task fMRI Analysis by Quantifying Spatiotemporal Processing Induced Correlations

Non-task fMRI has become one of the most popular noninvasive areas of brain mapping research for neuroscientists. In non-task fMRI, various sources of “noise” corrupt the measured blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal. Many studies have aimed to attenuate the noise in reconstructed voxel measurements through spatial and temporal processing operations. While these solutions make the data more “appealing,” many commonly used processing operations induce artificial correlations in the acquired data. As such, it becomes increasingly more difficult to derive the true underlying covariance structure once the data has been processed. As the goal of non-task fMRI studies is to determine, utilize and analyze the true covariance structure of acquired data, such processing can lead to inaccurate and misleading conclusions drawn from the data if they are unaccounted for in the final connectivity analysis. In this manuscript, we develop a framework that represents the spatiotemporal processing and reconstruction operations as linear operators, providing a means of precisely quantifying the correlations induced or modified by such processing rather than by performing lengthy Monte Carlo simulations. A framework of this kind allows one to appropriately model the statistical properties of the processed data, optimize the data processing pipeline, characterize excessive processing, and draw more accurate functional connectivity conclusions.

[1]  Robert L Barry,et al.  Complex and magnitude‐only preprocessing of 2D and 3D BOLD fMRI data at 7 T , 2012, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Integrated local correlation: A new measure of local coherence in fMRI data , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[3]  Daniel B Rowe,et al.  The SENSE-Isomorphism Theoretical Image Voxel Estimation (SENSE-ITIVE) model for reconstruction and observing statistical properties of reconstruction operators. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[4]  Y Kano,et al.  Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  D. Rowe,et al.  TEMPORAL PROCESSING OF FMRI DATA INDUCES FUNCTIONAL CORRELATIONS AND POTENTIALLY ALTERS FUNCTIONAL ACTIVATIONS , 2013 .

[6]  Wilkin Chau,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of SPM Preprocessing Parameters to the Analysis of fMRI Data , 2002, NeuroImage.

[7]  F Dubois Bowman,et al.  Spatio-temporal modeling of localized brain activity. , 2005, Biostatistics.

[8]  D. Rowe,et al.  Signal and noise of Fourier reconstructed fMRI data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[9]  D. Rowe,et al.  A statistical examination of SENSE image reconstruction via an isomorphism representation. , 2011, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[10]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  The Evaluation of Preprocessing Choices in Single-Subject BOLD fMRI Using NPAIRS Performance Metrics , 2003, NeuroImage.

[11]  R. Cox,et al.  Single‐shot magnetic field mapping embedded in echo‐planar time‐course imaging , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[12]  Andrew S. Nencka,et al.  A Mathematical Model for Understanding the STatistical effects of k-space (AMMUST-k) preprocessing on observed voxel measurements in fcMRI and fMRI , 2009, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[13]  L. Shah,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2010, Seminars in roentgenology.

[14]  Gordana Derado,et al.  Modeling the Spatial and Temporal Dependence in fMRI Data , 2010, Biometrics.

[15]  Gary F. Egan,et al.  Evaluating subject specific preprocessing choices in multisubject fMRI data sets using data-driven performance metrics , 2003, NeuroImage.

[16]  Daniel B. Rowe,et al.  Quantifying the Statistical Impact of GRAPPA in fcMRI Data With a Real-Valued Isomorphism , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  J. Jaccard,et al.  LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression , 1998 .

[18]  G H Glover,et al.  Image‐based method for retrospective correction of physiological motion effects in fMRI: RETROICOR , 2000, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[19]  P. Boesiger,et al.  SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  B. Ripley,et al.  A new statistical approach to detecting significant activation in functional MRI , 2000, NeuroImage.

[21]  Matthias F. Mueller,et al.  Parallel magnetic resonance imaging using the GRAPPA operator formalism , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[22]  Yul-Wan Sung,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2004, Scholarpedia.

[23]  Vinod Menon,et al.  Functional connectivity in the resting brain: A network analysis of the default mode hypothesis , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  S.C. Strother,et al.  Evaluating fMRI preprocessing pipelines , 2006, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[25]  B. Biswal,et al.  Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo‐planar mri , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[26]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Handbook of Functional MRI Data Analysis: Index , 2011 .

[27]  S. M. Steve SUSAN - a new approach to low level image processing , 1997 .

[28]  Dimitri Van De Ville,et al.  Determining significant connectivity by 4D spatiotemporal wavelet packet resampling of functional neuroimaging data , 2006, NeuroImage.

[29]  J. Ashburner,et al.  Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions , 1999, Human brain mapping.