Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29486322›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2018

Exploring the origins of EEG motion artefacts during simultaneous fMRI acquisition: Implications for motion artefact correction.

Glyn S Spencer, James A Smith, Muhammad E H Chowdhury, Richard Bowtell, Karen J Mullinger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Glyn S SpencerSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK; Department of Physics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK.
James A SmithSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Muhammad E H ChowdhuryDepartment of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, P. O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar.
Richard BowtellSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Karen J MullingerSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK; Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. Electronic address: karen.mullinger@nottingham.ac.uk.
University of Nottingham · GBQatar University · QAUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_15033Medical Research Council MC_PC_16055Medical Research Council MR/M009122/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motion artefacts (MAs) are induced within EEG data collected simultaneously with fMRI when the subject's head rotates relative to the magnetic field. The effects of these artefacts have generally been ameliorated by removing periods of data during which large artefact voltages appear in the EEG traces. However, even when combined with other standard post-processing methods, this strategy does not remove smaller MAs which can dominate the neuronal signals of interest. A number of methods are therefore being developed to characterise the MA by measuring reference signals and then using these in artefact correction. These methods generally assume that the head and EEG cap, plus any attached sensors, form a rigid body which can be characterised by a standard set of six motion parameters. Here we investigate the motion of the head/EEG cap system to provide a better understanding of MAs. We focus on the reference layer artefact subtraction (RLAS) approach, as this allows measurement of a separate reference signal for each electrode that is being used to measure brain activity. Through a series of experiments on phantoms and subjects, we find that movement of the EEG cap relative to the phantom and skin on the forehead is relatively small and that this non-rigid body movement does not appear to cause considerable discrepancy in artefacts between the scalp and reference signals. However, differences in the amplitude of these signals is observed which may be due to differences in geometry of the system from which the reference signals are measured compared with the brain signals. In addition, we find that there is non-rigid body movement of the skull and skin which produces an additional MA component for a head shake, which is not present for a head nod. This results in a large discrepancy in the amplitude and temporal profile of the MA measured on the scalp and reference layer, reducing the efficacy of MA correction based on the reference signals. Together our data suggest that the efficacy of the correction of MA using any reference-based system is likely to differ for different types of head movement with head shake being the hardest to correct. This provides new information to inform the development of hardware and post-processing methods for removing MAs from EEG data acquired simultaneously with fMRI data.

Indexed as

ArtifactsMotionBrain MappingElectroencephalographyHead MovementsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedArtefact correctionMotion artefactsMotion characterisationSimultaneous EEG-fMRI

Identifiers

PMID29486322
PMCPMC5929889
OpenAlexW2794332323

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.