Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33588017›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2021

Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise.

Jenni Leppanen, Henry Stone, David J Lythgoe, Steven Williams, Blanka Horvath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jenni LeppanenDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: jenni.leppanen@kcl.ac.uk.
Henry StoneDepartment of Mathematics, Imperial College London, UK.
David J LythgoeDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, UK.
Steven WilliamsDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, UK.
Blanka HorvathDepartment of Mathematics, King's College London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 213578/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingSignal-To-Noise RatioCalibrationHeadHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingCNNfMRIrBergomiRough noiseVolatility

Identifiers

PMID33588017
PMCPMC7992030

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.