Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27471441›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016

Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data.

Fabien Cignetti, Emilie Salvia, Jean-Luc Anton, Marie-Hélène Grosbras, Christine Assaiante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Fabien CignettiCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives UMR 7291, Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fédération 3C (FR 3512), Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France.
Emilie SalviaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives UMR 7291, Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fédération 3C (FR 3512), Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France.
Jean-Luc AntonCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre IRM Fonctionnelle Cérébrale, Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone UMR 7289, Aix-Marseille Université Marseille, France.
Marie-Hélène GrosbrasCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives UMR 7291, Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fédération 3C (FR 3512), Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France.
Christine AssaianteCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives UMR 7291, Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fédération 3C (FR 3512), Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data using the general linear model (GLM) employs a neural model convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function (HRF) peaking 5 s after stimulation. Incorporation of a further basis function, namely the canonical HRF temporal derivative, accounts for delays in the hemodynamic response to neural activity. A population that may benefit from this flexible approach is children whose hemodynamic response is not yet mature. Here, we examined the effects of using the set based on the canonical HRF plus its temporal derivative on both first- and second-level GLM analyses, through simulations and using developmental data (an fMRI dataset on proprioceptive mapping in children and adults). Simulations of delayed fMRI first-level data emphasized the benefit of carrying forward to the second-level a derivative boost that combines derivative and nonderivative beta estimates. In the experimental data, second-level analysis using a paired t-test showed increased mean amplitude estimate (i.e., increased group contrast mean) in several brain regions related to proprioceptive processing when using the derivative boost compared to using only the nonderivative term. This was true especially in children. However, carrying forward to the second-level the individual derivative boosts had adverse consequences on random-effects analysis that implemented one-sample t-test, yielding increased between-subject variance, thus affecting group-level statistic. Boosted data also presented a lower level of smoothness that had implication for the detection of group average activation. Imposing soft constraints on the derivative boost by limiting the time-to-peak range of the modeled response within a specified range (i.e., 4-6 s) mitigated these issues. These findings support the notion that there are pros and cons to using the informed basis set with developmental data.

Indexed as

basis setdevelopmentfMRIhemodynamic responserandom-effects analysissmoothness

Identifiers

PMID27471441
PMCPMC4945642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.