ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2021
Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Electroencephalography Spectral-power Volatility Predicts Problem-solving Outcomes.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe assumption that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) noise has constant volatility has recently been challenged by studies examining heteroscedasticity arising from head motion and physiological noise. The present study builds on this work using latest methods from the field of financial mathematics to model fMRI noise volatility.
methodsMulti-echo phantom and human fMRI scans were used and realised volatility was estimated. The Hurst parameter H ∈ (0,1), which governs the roughness/irregularity of realised volatility time series, was estimated. Calibration of H was performed pathwise, using well-established neural network calibration tools.
resultsIn all experiments the volatility calibrated to values within the rough case, H < 0.5, and on average fMRI noise was very rough with 0.03 < H < 0.05. Some edge effects were also observed, whereby H was larger near the edges of the phantoms. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that fMRI volatility is not only non-constant, but also substantially more irregular than a standard Brownian motion. Thus, further research is needed to examine the impact such pronounced oscillations in the volatility of fMRI noise have on data analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.