Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25132113›Full record

ArticleBrain connectivity2014

Quantification of the statistical effects of spatiotemporal processing of nontask FMRI data.

Muge Karaman, Andrew S Nencka, Iain P Bruce, Daniel B Rowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain connectivity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Muge Karaman1 Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, Marquette University , Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Andrew S Nencka
Iain P Bruce
Daniel B Rowe

Funding

Improving f(c)MRI Accuracy by Accounting for the Implications of Data ProcessingR21NS087450 · NINDS · MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY · PI ROWE, DANIEL B · 2014 to 2015
$386k
NINDS NIH HHS NS087450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nontask functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become one of the most popular noninvasive areas of brain mapping research for neuroscientists. In nontask fMRI, various sources of "noise" corrupt the measured blood oxygenation level-dependent 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 have been processed. As the goal of nontask 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 article, 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.

Indexed as

Brain MappingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, NeurologicalAlgorithmsBrainComputer SimulationHumansOxygenPhantoms, ImagingTime FactorsOxygenbrain connectivitycorrelation matriximage reconstructionnontask fMRIspatiotemporal processingstatistics

Identifiers

PMID25132113
PMCPMC4238310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.