Performance of temporal and spatial ICA in identifying and removing low-frequency physiological and motion effects in resting-state fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective separation of signal from noise (including physiological processes and head motion) is one of the chief challenges for improving the sensitivity and specificity of resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) measurements and has a profound impact when these noise sources vary between populations. Independent component analysis (ICA) is an approach for addressing these challenges. Conventionally, due to the lower amount of temporal than spatial information in rs-fMRI data, spatial ICA (sICA) is the method of choice. However, with recent developments in accelerated fMRI acquisitions, the temporal information is becoming enriched to the point that the temporal ICA (tICA) has become more feasible. This is particularly relevant as physiological processes and motion exhibit very different spatial and temporal characteristics when it comes to rs-fMRI applications, leading us to conduct a comparison of the performance of sICA and tICA in addressing these types of noise. In this study, we embrace the novel practice of using theory (simulations) to guide our interpretation of empirical data. We find empirically that sICA can identify more noise-related signal components than tICA. However, on the merit of functional-connectivity results, we find that while sICA is more adept at reducing whole-brain motion effects, tICA performs better in dealing with physiological effects. These interpretations are corroborated by our simulation results. The overall message of this study is that if ICA denoising is to be used for rs-fMRI, there is merit in considering a hybrid approach in which physiological and motion-related noise are each corrected for using their respective best-suited ICA approach. Impact Statement Resting-state fMRI is influenced by low-frequency physiological noise and head motion. Independent component analysis (ICA) is becoming increasingly relied on for reducing these influences, but the utility of spatial and temporal ICA remains unclear. We conducted a comparison of the performance of these two ICA types, using physiological-noise and motion time courses as reference. We found that spatial ICA is more adept at reducing motion effects, while temporal ICA performs better in dealing with physiological effects. We believe these findings provide much-needed clarity on the role of ICA, and recommend using a hybrid of tICA and sICA as a paradigm shift in resting-state fMRI.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".