Performance of Temporal and Spatial Independent Component Analysis in Identifying and Removing Low-Frequency Physiological and Motion Effects in Resting-State fMRI
Bibliographic record
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".