Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34806255›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2022

Early soft and flexible fusion of electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging via double coupled matrix tensor factorization for multisubject group analysis.

Christos Chatzichristos, Eleftherios Kofidis, Wim Van Paesschen, Lieven De Lathauwer, Sergios Theodoridis, Sabine Van Huffel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Tensor Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Christos ChatzichristosDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9054-5340
Eleftherios KofidisDepartment of Statistics and Insurance Science, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5887-9404
Wim Van PaesschenDepartment of Neurology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lieven De LathauwerDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sergios TheodoridisDepartment of Informatics and Telecommunications, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Sabine Van HuffelDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data fusion refers to the joint analysis of multiple datasets that provide different (e.g., complementary) views of the same task. In general, it can extract more information than separate analyses can. Jointly analyzing electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measurements has been proved to be highly beneficial to the study of the brain function, mainly because these neuroimaging modalities have complementary spatiotemporal resolution: EEG offers good temporal resolution while fMRI is better in its spatial resolution. The EEG-fMRI fusion methods that have been reported so far ignore the underlying multiway nature of the data in at least one of the modalities and/or rely on very strong assumptions concerning the relation of the respective datasets. For example, in multisubject analysis, it is commonly assumed that the hemodynamic response function is a priori known for all subjects and/or the coupling across corresponding modes is assumed to be exact (hard). In this article, these two limitations are overcome by adopting tensor models for both modalities and by following soft and flexible coupling approaches to implement the multimodal fusion. The obtained results are compared against those of parallel independent component analysis and hard coupling alternatives, with both synthetic and real data (epilepsy and visual oddball paradigm). Our results demonstrate the clear advantage of using soft and flexible coupled tensor decompositions in scenarios that do not conform with the hard coupling assumption.

Indexed as

BrainNerve NetAdultElectroencephalographyEpilepsyFemaleFunctional NeuroimagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleModels, TheoreticalMultimodal ImagingYoung Adultdouble CMTFEEGflexiblefMRI tensor decompositionsfusionseizure onsetsoft

Identifiers

PMID34806255
PMCPMC8837580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.