ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Integrating anatomical and functional landmarks for interparticipant alignment of imaging data.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aligning brain maps using functional features rather than anatomical landmarks potentially improves individual identifiability and increases power in group neuroimaging studies. However, alignment based purely on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) risks omitting useful anatomical constraints. An optimized combination of anatomical and functional feature alignment could balance the advantages of each approach. We used 3T fMRI data from 80 Human Connectome Project participants during seven tasks. The effectiveness of functional and anatomical alignment methods was evaluated using interparticipant decoding accuracy. Functional alignment mapped vertices from participants to a template, aligning their fMRI responses to shared responses during movie viewing. The template was derived from the combined fMRI responses of a set of participants. We benchmarked the results against existing functional alignment methods, including the Procrustes method and ridge regression. A common practice in the field is to use the same participants for the alignment cohort and for template generation. We found that this inflates decoding accuracies by mixing anatomical and functional alignment. Based on this, we recommend that a template's generalizability should be evaluated against held-out participants. Building on these findings, we investigated whether inter-subject alignment could be improved by integrating anatomical and functional information. We studied a modified alignment method where a single parameter interpolates between pure functional alignment and anatomical alignment. Optimizing the parameter with nested cross-validation, we found that integrating anatomical and functional information robustly reduced noise and improved alignment across a variety of alignment methods. Combining anatomical and functional information accounts for individual heterogeneity in functional topographies while incorporating anatomical constraints. The integrated alignment described here improves inter-subject decoding using functional brain maps. These findings also demonstrate that brain anatomy provides a lens into the inherent variability of individual neural landscapes.
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.