An Empirical Comparison of SPM Preprocessing Parameters to the Analysis of fMRI Data

We present the results from two sets of Monte Carlo simulations aimed at evaluating the robustness of some preprocessing parameters of SPM99 for the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Statistical robustness was estimated by implementing parametric and nonparametric simulation approaches based on the images obtained from an event-related fMRI experiment. Simulated datasets were tested for combinations of the following parameters: basis function, global scaling, low-pass filter, high-pass filter and autoregressive modeling of serial autocorrelation. Based on single-subject SPM analysis, we derived the following conclusions that may serve as a guide for initial analysis of fMRI data using SPM99: (1) The canonical hemodynamic response function is a more reliable basis function to model the fMRI time series than HRF with time derivative. (2) Global scaling should be avoided since it may significantly decrease the power depending on the experimental design. (3) The use of a high-pass filter may be beneficial for event-related designs with fixed interstimulus intervals. (4) When dealing with fMRI time series with short interstimulus intervals (<8 s), the use of first-order autoregressive model is recommended over a low-pass filter (HRF) because it reduces the risk of inferential bias while providing a relatively good power. For datasets with interstimulus intervals longer than 8 seconds, temporal smoothing is not recommended since it decreases power. While the generalizability of our results may be limited, the methods we employed can be easily implemented by other scientists to determine the best parameter combination to analyze their data.

[1]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  The Inferential Impact of Global Signal Covariates in Functional Neuroimaging Analyses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[2]  R. Weisskoff,et al.  Effect of temporal autocorrelation due to physiological noise and stimulus paradigm on voxel‐level false‐positive rates in fMRI , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[3]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Empirical analyses of BOLD fMRI statistics. I. Spatially unsmoothed data collected under null-hypothesis conditions. , 1997, NeuroImage.

[4]  N. Oden Allocation of effort in Monte Carlo simulation for power of permutation tests , 1991 .

[5]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Statistical limitations in functional neuroimaging. II. Signal detection and statistical inference. , 1999, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Statistical Analysis for CBF Activation Studies in Human Brain , 1992, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

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

[8]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation , 1996, Human brain mapping.

[9]  I. Dryden,et al.  Highly Resistant Regression and Object Matching , 1999, Biometrics.

[10]  R. Adler,et al.  The Geometry of Random Fields , 1982 .

[11]  B. Horwitz,et al.  Within‐subject transformations of PET regional cerebral blood flow data: ANCOVA, ratio, and Z‐score adjustments on empirical data , 1996, Human brain mapping.

[12]  Julian D. Olden,et al.  Assessing the robustness of randomization tests: examples from behavioural studies , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

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

[14]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[15]  M. Stephens EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons , 1974 .

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Analysis of functional MRI time‐series , 1994, Human Brain Mapping.

[17]  R. Miller,et al.  Parameters , 1966, British medical journal.

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

[19]  R. Buxton,et al.  Detection Power, Estimation Efficiency, and Predictability in Event-Related fMRI , 2001, NeuroImage.

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

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

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

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

[24]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Changes in global cerebral blood flow in humans: effect on regional cerebral blood flow during a neural activation task. , 1993, The Journal of physiology.

[25]  E Zarahn,et al.  Event-related functional MRI: implications for cognitive psychology. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach , 1994 .

[27]  R. Turner,et al.  Characterizing Evoked Hemodynamics with fMRI , 1995, NeuroImage.

[28]  Allen W. Song,et al.  Technical Foundations and Pitfalls of Clinical fMRI , 1996, NeuroImage.