Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27993672›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2017

Comparison of fMRI analysis methods for heterogeneous BOLD responses in block design studies.

Jia Liu, Ben A Duffy, David Bernal-Casas, Zhongnan Fang, Jin Hyung Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Jia Liu *Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Ben A Duffy *Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
David Bernal-CasasDepartment of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Zhongnan FangDepartment of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Jin Hyung LeeDepartment of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

Funding

Dynamic regulation of whole brain circuit function by basal ganglia pathwaysR01NS091461 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LEE, JIN HYUNG · 2015 to 2019
$2.4M
In Vivo Control and Functional Visualization of Stem Cell-Driven CNS RegenerationDP2OD007265 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LEE, JIN HYUNG · 2010 to 2010
$2.4M
Deconstructing Arousal Regulation Circuits for Optimal DBS Therapy DesignR01NS087159 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LEE, JIN HYUNG · 2014 to 2018
$1.9M
Direct Visualization of Cell-Type Specific AD Networks for Drug DevelopmentRF1AG047666 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LEE, JIN HYUNG · 2014 to 2014
$1.8M
Visualization of Neuro-Molecular Targeting using Distribution-Free, High-Res fMRIR00EB008738 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LEE, JIN HYUNG · 2010 to 2012
$745k
NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG047666NIBIB NIH HHS R00 EB008738NIH HHS DP2 OD007265NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS087159NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS091461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large number of fMRI studies have shown that the temporal dynamics of evoked BOLD responses can be highly heterogeneous. Failing to model heterogeneous responses in statistical analysis can lead to significant errors in signal detection and characterization and alter the neurobiological interpretation. However, to date it is not clear that, out of a large number of options, which methods are robust against variability in the temporal dynamics of BOLD responses in block-design studies. Here, we used rodent optogenetic fMRI data with heterogeneous BOLD responses and simulations guided by experimental data as a means to investigate different analysis methods' performance against heterogeneous BOLD responses. Evaluations are carried out within the general linear model (GLM) framework and consist of standard basis sets as well as independent component analysis (ICA). Analyses show that, in the presence of heterogeneous BOLD responses, conventionally used GLM with a canonical basis set leads to considerable errors in the detection and characterization of BOLD responses. Our results suggest that the 3rd and 4th order gamma basis sets, the 7th to 9th order finite impulse response (FIR) basis sets, the 5th to 9th order B-spline basis sets, and the 2nd to 5th order Fourier basis sets are optimal for good balance between detection and characterization, while the 1st order Fourier basis set (coherence analysis) used in our earlier studies show good detection capability. ICA has mostly good detection and characterization capabilities, but detects a large volume of spurious activation with the control fMRI data.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalResearch DesignAnimalsFunctional NeuroimagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingOptogeneticsBlock designfMRI data analysisHemodynamic responseOptogenetic fMRI

Identifiers

PMID27993672
PMCPMC5472444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.