Investigation of spatial resolution, partial volume effects and smoothing in functional MRI using artificial 3D time series

This work addresses the balance between temporal signal-to-noise ratio (tSNR) and partial volume effects (PVE) in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and investigates the impact of the choice of spatial resolution and smoothing. In fMRI, since physiological time courses are monitored, tSNR is of greater importance than image SNR. Improving SNR by an increase in voxel volume may be of negligible benefit when physiological fluctuations dominate the noise. Furthermore, at large voxel volumes, PVE are more pronounced, leading to an overall loss in performance. Artificial fMRI time series, based on high-resolution anatomical data, were used to simulate BOLD activation in a controlled manner. The performance was subsequently quantified as a measure of how well the resulted activation matched the simulated activation. The performance was highly dependent on the spatial resolution. At high contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the optimal voxel volume was small, i.e. in the region of 2(3) mm(3). It was also shown that using a substantially larger voxel volume in this case could potentially negate the CNR benefits. The optimal smoothing kernel width was dependent on the CNR, being larger at poor CNR. At CNR >1, little or no smoothing proved advantageous. The use of artificial time series gave an opportunity to quantitatively investigate the effects of partial volume and smoothing in single subject fMRI. It was shown that a proper choice of spatial resolution and smoothing kernel width is important for fMRI performance.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[2]  R. Turner,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain: data acquisition and analysis , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  B M Dawant,et al.  Brain segmentation and white matter lesion detection in MR images. , 1994, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[4]  John C. Gore,et al.  ROC Analysis of Statistical Methods Used in Functional MRI: Individual Subjects , 1999, NeuroImage.

[5]  K. Zilles,et al.  Areas 3a, 3b, and 1 of Human Primary Somatosensory Cortex 2. Spatial Normalization to Standard Anatomical Space , 2000, NeuroImage.

[6]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Analysis of fMRI Time-Series Revisited—Again , 1995, NeuroImage.

[7]  Lawrence L. Wald,et al.  Comparison of physiological noise at 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T and optimization of fMRI acquisition parameters , 2005, NeuroImage.

[8]  Charles E. Metz Fundamental ROC Analysis , 2000 .

[9]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Kevin Murphy,et al.  Mapping the MRI voxel volume in which thermal noise matches physiological noise—Implications for fMRI , 2007, NeuroImage.

[11]  W. Edelstein,et al.  The intrinsic signal‐to‐noise ratio in NMR imaging , 1986, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

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

[13]  Todd B. Parrish,et al.  Impact of signal‐to‐noise on functional MRI , 2000 .

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  To Smooth or Not to Smooth? Bias and Efficiency in fMRI Time-Series Analysis , 2000, NeuroImage.

[15]  Kevin Murphy,et al.  How long to scan? The relationship between fMRI temporal signal to noise ratio and necessary scan duration , 2007, NeuroImage.

[16]  Antti Korvenoja,et al.  Sensorimotor cortex localization: comparison of magnetoencephalography, functional MR imaging, and intraoperative cortical mapping. , 2006, Radiology.

[17]  Lawrence L. Wald,et al.  Effect of spatial smoothing on physiological noise in high-resolution fMRI , 2006, NeuroImage.

[18]  Xenophon Papademetris,et al.  Spatial resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and smoothing in multi-subject functional MRI studies , 2006, NeuroImage.

[19]  R. Turner,et al.  Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  L. Toth,et al.  How accurate is magnetic resonance imaging of brain function? , 2003, Trends in Neurosciences.

[21]  Dae-Shik Kim,et al.  Spatial relationship between neuronal activity and BOLD functional MRI , 2004, NeuroImage.

[22]  Society of magnetic resonance in medicine , 1990 .

[23]  Rupert Lanzenberger,et al.  Influence of fMRI smoothing procedures on replicability of fine scale motor localization , 2005, NeuroImage.

[24]  R M Harrison,et al.  Partial volume effects in MRI studies of multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[25]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging , 2009 .

[26]  G. Glover,et al.  Physiological noise in oxygenation‐sensitive magnetic resonance imaging , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  B. Biswal,et al.  High‐resolution fMRI using multislice partial k‐space GR‐EPI with cubic voxels , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[28]  H. Gudbjartsson,et al.  The rician distribution of noisy mri data , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[29]  R. S. Hinks,et al.  Time course EPI of human brain function during task activation , 1992, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[30]  M. Brammer,et al.  Multiresolution analysis in fMRI: Sensitivity and specificity in the detection of brain activation , 2001, Human brain mapping.

[31]  R. Henkelman Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images. , 1985, Medical physics.

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

[33]  Stephen M Smith,et al.  High‐resolution FMRI at 1.5T using balanced SSFP , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.