MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124498607 · doi:10.1002/mrm.20893

Isolation and minimization of head motion‐induced signal variations in fMRI data using independent component analysis

2006· article· en· W2124498607 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsPacific Centre for Reproductive MedicineUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePreprocessorMotion (physics)SIGNAL (programming language)Independent component analysisSimilarity (geometry)Pattern recognition (psychology)Task (project management)Computer visionMinificationImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Task-related head movement during acquisition of fMRI data represents a serious confound for both motion correction and estimates of task-related activation. Cost functions implemented in most conventional motion-correction algorithms compare two volumes for similarity but fail to account for signal variability that is not due to motion (e.g., brain activation). We therefore recently proposed the theoretical basis for a novel method for fMRI motion correction, termed motion-corrected independent component analysis (MCICA), that allows for brain activation present in an fMRI time-series to be implicitly modeled and mitigates motion-induced signal changes without having to directly estimate the motion parameters (Liao et al., IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 2005;25:29-44). To explore the effects of non-movement-related signal changes on registration error, we performed several previously proposed test simulations (Freire et al., IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 2002;21:470-484) to evaluate the performance of MCICA and compare it with the conventional square-of-difference-based measures such as LS-SPM and LS-AIR. We demonstrate that for both simulated data and real fMRI images, the proposed MCICA method performs favorably. Specifically, in simulations MCICA was more robust to the addition of simulated activation, and did not lead to the detection of false activations after correction for simulated task-correlated motion. With actual data from a motor fMRI experiment, the time course of the derived continually task-related ICA component became more correlated with the underlying behavioral task after preprocessing with MCICA compared to other methods, and the associated activation map was more clustered in the primary motor and supplementary motor cortices without spurious activation at the brain edge. We conclude that assessing the statistical properties of a motion-corrupted volume in relation to other volumes in the series, as is done with MCICA, is an accurate means of differentiating between motion-induced signal changes and other sources of variability in fMRI data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it