ArticleAperture neuro2026
Impact of multi-echo ICA modeling decisions on motor-task fMRI analysis.
Article in Aperture neuro, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-echo independent component analysis (ME-ICA) has been demonstrated to improve sensitivity and reliability of task functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and, in particular, motor-task data with inherent task-correlated head motion. However, previous work has shown that an overly aggressive ME-ICA denoising approach may unintentionally remove task-related signal, while a more conservative approach may not effectively mitigate noise. While the effects of varied implementations of ME-ICA on signal and noise characteristics have been tested thoroughly in breath-hold data, the effects of similar modeling decisions have not been studied in motor-task data, which present with a more localized neural response. Here, we tested and compared the impacts of three analysis methods using rejected ME-ICA components as regressors in subject-level modeling: Aggressive (simple inclusion of ME-ICA regressors), Moderate (excluding task-correlated ME-ICA regressors from the model), and Conservative (orthogonalization of ME-ICA regressors to the core model and accepted ME-ICA components). We applied these methods to data from healthy and multiple sclerosis populations that included performance of hand-grasp, shoulder-abduction, and ankle-flexion tasks. We found that when the amount of head motion and its correlation with the task was high and the expected task-evoked signal was relatively low, the Conservative method led to significantly higher activation, t-statistics, and test-retest similarity in motor regions compared to the Aggressive method. Future motor-task studies may wish to implement similar models to prevent loss of motor signal, while still mitigating the effects of task-correlated head motion.
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.