Optimizing the fMRI data-processing pipeline using prediction and reproducibility performance metrics: I. A preliminary group analysis

We argue that published results demonstrate that new insights into human brain function may be obscured by poor and/or limited choices in the data-processing pipeline, and review the work on performance metrics for optimizing pipelines: prediction, reproducibility, and related empirical Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve metrics. Using the NPAIRS split-half resampling framework for estimating prediction/reproducibility metrics (Strother et al., 2002), we illustrate its use by testing the relative importance of selected pipeline components (interpolation, in-plane spatial smoothing, temporal detrending, and between-subject alignment) in a group analysis of BOLD-fMRI scans from 16 subjects performing a block-design, parametric-static-force task. Large-scale brain networks were detected using a multivariate linear discriminant analysis (canonical variates analysis, CVA) that was tuned to fit the data. We found that tuning the CVA model and spatial smoothing were the most important processing parameters. Temporal detrending was essential to remove low-frequency, reproducing time trends; the number of cosine basis functions for detrending was optimized by assuming that separate epochs of baseline scans have constant, equal means, and this assumption was assessed with prediction metrics. Higher-order polynomial warps compared to affine alignment had only a minor impact on the performance metrics. We found that both prediction and reproducibility metrics were required for optimizing the pipeline and give somewhat different results. Moreover, the parameter settings of components in the pipeline interact so that the current practice of reporting the optimization of components tested in relative isolation is unlikely to lead to fully optimized processing pipelines.

[1]  Arthur W Toga,et al.  The LONI Pipeline Processing Environment , 2003, NeuroImage.

[2]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Massive Weight Sharing: A Cure For Extremely Ill-Posed Problems , 1994 .

[3]  D C Noll,et al.  Estimating test‐retest reliability in functional MR imaging II: Application to motor and cognitive activation studies , 1997, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  T H Le,et al.  Methods for assessing accuracy and reliability in functional MRI , 1997, NMR in biomedicine.

[5]  Gary F. Egan,et al.  Simulation of the Effects of Global Normalization Procedures in Functional MRI , 2002, NeuroImage.

[6]  L. K. Hansen,et al.  Generalization: The Hidden Agenda of Learning , 1997, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[7]  Ranjan Maitra,et al.  Test‐retest reliability estimation of functional MRI data , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[8]  Stephen C. Strother,et al.  Penalized Discriminant Analysis of [15O]-water PET Brain Images with Prediction Error Selection of Smoothness and Regularization , 2001, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[9]  S. Strother,et al.  An evaluation of methods for detecting brain activations from PET or fMRI images , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).

[10]  Stephen C. Strother A developer’s commentary on fiswidgets , 2003, Neuroinformatics.

[11]  J C Mazziotta,et al.  Automated image registration: II. Intersubject validation of linear and nonlinear models. , 1998, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  Rafal Kustra,et al.  Statistical analysis of medical images with applications to neuroimaging , 2000 .

[13]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Measuring Activation Pattern Reproducibility Using Resampling Techniques , 1998 .

[14]  Stephen C. Strother,et al.  An evaluation of methods for detecting brain activations from functional neuroimages , 2002, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[15]  A. Ishai,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2001, Science.

[16]  E Mjolsness,et al.  Machine learning for science: state of the art and future prospects. , 2001, Science.

[17]  Michael Brady,et al.  Improved Optimization for the Robust and Accurate Linear Registration and Motion Correction of Brain Images , 2002, NeuroImage.

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

[19]  A. Gjedde,et al.  Quantitative functional brain imaging with positron emission tomography , 1998 .

[20]  Dietmar Cordes,et al.  Novel ROC‐type method for testing the efficiency of multivariate statistical methods in fMRI , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[21]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Fiswidgets - A graphical computing environment for neuroimaging analysis , 2003, Neuroinformatics.

[22]  Jean-Baptiste Poline,et al.  Multivariate Model Specification for fMRI Data , 2002, NeuroImage.

[23]  P. Cheng,et al.  Bridging Functional MR Images and Scientific Inference: Reproducibility Maps , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  S. Strother,et al.  Reproducibility of BOLD‐based functional MRI obtained at 4 T , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[25]  Jody Tanabe,et al.  See Blockindiscussions, Blockinstats, Blockinand Blockinauthor Blockinprofiles Blockinfor Blockinthis Blockinpublication Comparison Blockinof Blockindetrending Blockinmethods Blockinfor Optimal Blockinfmri Blockinpreprocessing , 2022 .

[26]  Shing-Chung Ngan,et al.  Temporal Filtering of Event-Related fMRI Data Using Cross-Validation , 2000, NeuroImage.

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

[28]  Gary F. Egan,et al.  Abnormal Functional Connectivity in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder , 2002, NeuroImage.

[29]  Mack Pb,et al.  The quantitative evaluation of bone density. , 1949 .

[30]  R. Woods,et al.  Principal Component Analysis and the Scaled Subprofile Model Compared to Intersubject Averaging and Statistical Parametric Mapping: I. “Functional Connectivity” of the Human Motor System Studied with [15O]Water PET , 1995, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[31]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Automated image registration: I. General methods and intrasubject, intramodality validation. , 1998, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[32]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Enhancing the Multivariate Signal of [15O] water PET Studies with a New Non-Linear Neuroanatomical Registration Algorithm , 1999, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[33]  Ruiliang Pu,et al.  Penalized discriminant analysis of in situ hyperspectral data for conifer species recognition , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[34]  C. Genovese,et al.  Estimating test‐retest reliability in functional MR imaging I: Statistical methodology , 1997, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[35]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[36]  A. Grinvald,et al.  Interactions Between Electrical Activity and Cortical Microcirculation Revealed by Imaging Spectroscopy: Implications for Functional Brain Mapping , 1996, Science.

[37]  M. McKeown Detection of Consistently Task-Related Activations in fMRI Data with Hybrid Independent Component Analysis , 2000, NeuroImage.

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

[39]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[40]  Nikolas P. Galatsanos,et al.  Relevance vector machine analysis of functional neuroimages , 2004, 2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821).

[41]  N. Andreasen,et al.  Anatomic and Functional Variability: The Effects of Filter Size in Group fMRI Data Analysis , 2001, NeuroImage.

[42]  V. Dhawan,et al.  Reproducibility of regional metabolic covariance patterns: comparison of four populations. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[43]  S. C. Strother,et al.  The Quantitative Evaluation of Functional Neuroimaging Experiments: Mutual Information Learning Curves , 2002, NeuroImage.

[44]  R. P. Carver The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing, Revisited , 1993 .

[45]  L. K. Hansen,et al.  The Quantitative Evaluation of Functional Neuroimaging Experiments: The NPAIRS Data Analysis Framework , 2000, NeuroImage.

[46]  K. Kiehl,et al.  Reproducibility of the hemodynamic response to auditory oddball stimuli: A six‐week test–retest study , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[47]  Stephen C. Strother,et al.  Predicting Motor Tasks in fMRI Data with Support Vector Machines , 2003 .

[48]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Evaluating preprocessing choices in single-subject BOLD-fMRI studies using data-driven performance metrics , 2001, NeuroImage.

[49]  R. P. Carver The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing , 1978 .

[50]  S. Strother,et al.  Penalized discriminant analysis of [/sup 15/O]-water PET brain images with prediction error selection of smoothness and regularization hyperparameters , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[51]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Consensus Inference in Neuroimaging , 2001, NeuroImage.

[52]  David D. Cox,et al.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) “brain reading”: detecting and classifying distributed patterns of fMRI activity in human visual cortex , 2003, NeuroImage.

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

[54]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A Study of Analysis Parameters That Influence the Sensitivity of Event-Related fMRI Analyses , 2000, NeuroImage.

[55]  Nikolas P. Galatsanos,et al.  Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo signal detection in functional neuroimaging analysis , 2004, 2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821).

[56]  Stephen C. Strother,et al.  Effects of Changes in Experimental Design on PET Studies of Isometric Force , 2001, NeuroImage.

[57]  S C Strother,et al.  Commentary and Opinion: I. Principal Component Analysis, Variance Partitioning, and “Functional Connectivity” , 1995, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[58]  L. K. Hansen,et al.  Generalizable Patterns in Neuroimaging: How Many Principal Components? , 1999, NeuroImage.

[59]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Alterations in the BOLD fMRI signal with ageing and disease: a challenge for neuroimaging , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[60]  L. K. Hansen,et al.  Activation pattern reproducibility: Measuring the effects of group size and data analysis models , 1997, Human brain mapping.

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

[62]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Nonlinear versus Linear Models in Functional Neuroimaging: Learning Curves and Generalization Crossover , 1997, IPMI.

[63]  L. K. Hansen,et al.  Plurality and Resemblance in fMRI Data Analysis , 1999, NeuroImage.

[64]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A multivariate analysis of PET activation studies , 1996, Human brain mapping.