Reducing inter-scanner variability of activation in a multicenter fMRI study: Role of smoothness equalization

Scanner-to-scanner variability of activation in multicenter fMRI studies is often considered undesirable. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of a new procedure, "smoothness equalization", on reducing scanner differences in activation effect size as part of a multicenter fMRI project (FIRST BIRN). Five subjects were sent to 9 centers (10 scanners) and scanned on 2 consecutive days using a sensorimotor fMRI protocol. High-field (4 T and 3 T) and low-field (1.5 T) scanners from three vendors (GE, Siemens, and Picker) were included. The activation effect size of the scanners for the detection of neural activation during a sensorimotor task was evaluated as the percent of temporal variance accounted for by our model (percent of variance accounted for or PVAF). Marked scanner effects were noted for both PVAF as well as the degree of smoothness of the raw and processed images. After smoothness equalization, there was a dramatic (low field) or consistent (high-field) reduction in scanner-to-scanner variation of activation. It was shown that the likely basis of the scanner differences in smoothness was differences in k-space filtering algorithms. This work highlights the need to account for differences in smoothness when comparing scanners on activation effect size in multicenter fMRI studies.

[1]  M. Lowe,et al.  Spatially filtering functional magnetic resonance imaging data , 1997, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  S. Riederer,et al.  Analysis of T2 limitations and off‐resonance effects on spatial resolution and artifacts in echo‐planar imaging , 1990, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

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

[4]  Mark S. Cohen,et al.  Parametric Analysis of fMRI Data Using Linear Systems Methods , 1997, NeuroImage.

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

[6]  R. Turner,et al.  Functional mapping of the human visual cortex at 4 and 1.5 tesla using deoxygenation contrast EPI , 1993, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[7]  G. Glover,et al.  Spiral‐in/out BOLD fMRI for increased SNR and reduced susceptibility artifacts , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[8]  J. Duyn,et al.  EPI‐BOLD fMRI of human motor cortex at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: Sensitivity dependence on echo time and acquisition bandwidth , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Optimizing the fMRI data-processing pipeline using prediction and reproducibility performance metrics: I. A preliminary group analysis , 2004, NeuroImage.

[10]  K. Uğurbil,et al.  Experimental determination of the BOLD field strength dependence in vessels and tissue , 1997, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[11]  R. Turner,et al.  Event-Related fMRI: Characterizing Differential Responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[12]  Hilleke E. Hulshoff Pol,et al.  Brain volumes as predictor of outcome in recent-onset schizophrenia: a multi-center MRI study , 2003, Schizophrenia Research.

[13]  M Cortsen,et al.  In vivo measurements of proton relaxation times in human brain, liver, and skeletal muscle: a multicenter MRI study. , 1993, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[14]  I. Wilkinson,et al.  A multicenter proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study of neurological complications of AIDS. , 1996, AIDS research and human retroviruses.

[15]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Reproducibility of fMRI Results across Four Institutions Using a Spatial Working Memory Task , 1998, NeuroImage.

[16]  Jeff H. Duyn,et al.  Comparison of 3D BOLD Functional MRI with Spiral Acquisition at 1.5 and 4.0 T , 1999, NeuroImage.

[17]  Gregory G. Brown,et al.  Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multi-institutional study performed by Biomedical Informatics Research Network. , 2005, Radiology.

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

[19]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A General Statistical Analysis for fMRI Data , 2000, NeuroImage.

[20]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Robust Smoothness Estimation in Statistical Parametric Maps Using Standardized Residuals from the General Linear Model , 1999, NeuroImage.

[21]  M. Kenward,et al.  Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. , 1997, Biometrics.

[22]  J. -B. Poline,et al.  Estimating the Delay of the fMRI Response , 2002, NeuroImage.

[23]  David H. Miller,et al.  A multicenter measurement of magnetization transfer ratio in normal white matter , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Improved Assessment of Significant Activation in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI): Use of a Cluster‐Size Threshold , 1995, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  Gary H. Glover,et al.  Comparison of fMRI activation at 3 and 1.5 T during perceptual, cognitive, and affective processing , 2003, NeuroImage.

[26]  G. Glover,et al.  Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: Comparison of oxygenation‐sensitive magnetic resonance imaging , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  Tyrone D. Cannon,et al.  Reliability of brain volumes from multicenter MRI acquisition: A calibration study , 2004, Human brain mapping.