Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30339731›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2019

Exploring the relative efficacy of motion artefact correction techniques for EEG data acquired during simultaneous fMRI.

Alexander J Daniel, James A Smith, Glyn S Spencer, João Jorge, Richard Bowtell, Karen J Mullinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Alexander J DanielSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2353-3283
James A SmithSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Glyn S SpencerSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
João JorgeLaboratory for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6667-1868
Richard BowtellSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Karen J MullingerSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8164-0274

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/L016052/1Medical Research Council MR/M009122/1Medical Research Council (MRC) Confidence in Concept Award MC_PC_15033Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simultaneous EEG-fMRI allows multiparametric characterisation of brain function, in principle enabling a more complete understanding of brain responses; unfortunately the hostile MRI environment severely reduces EEG data quality. Simply eliminating data segments containing gross motion artefacts [MAs] (generated by movement of the EEG system and head in the MRI scanner's static magnetic field) was previously believed sufficient. However recently the importance of removal of all MAs has been highlighted and new methods developed. A systematic comparison of the ability to remove MAs and retain underlying neuronal activity using different methods of MA detection and post-processing algorithms is needed to guide the neuroscience community. Using a head phantom, we recorded MAs while simultaneously monitoring the motion using three different approaches: Reference Layer Artefact Subtraction (RLAS), Moiré Phase Tracker (MPT) markers and Wire Loop Motion Sensors (WLMS). These EEG recordings were combined with EEG responses to simple visual tasks acquired on a subject outside the MRI environment. MAs were then corrected using the motion information collected with each of the methods combined with different analysis pipelines. All tested methods retained the neuronal signal. However, often the MA was not removed sufficiently to allow accurate detection of the underlying neuronal signal. We show that the MA is best corrected using the RLAS combined with post-processing using a multichannel, recursive least squares (M-RLS) algorithm. This method needs to be developed further to enable practical utility; thus, WLMS combined with M-RLS currently provides the best compromise between EEG data quality and practicalities of motion detection.

Indexed as

ArtifactsHead MovementsAdultCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyFunctional NeuroimagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPhantoms, Imagingartefact correctionhead motion artefactmotion artefact detectionquantitative comparisonsimultaneous EEG-fMRI

Identifiers

PMID30339731
PMCPMC6492138

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.