Investigating the variability of physiological response functions across individuals and brain regions in functional magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a valuable neuroimaging tool for studying brain function and functional connectivity between brain regions. However, the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal used to generate the fMRI images can be influenced by various physiological factors, such as cardiac and respiratory activity. These physiological effects, in turn, influence the resulting functional connectivity patterns, making physiological noise correction a crucial step in the preprocessing of fMRI data. When concurrent physiological recordings are available, researchers often generate nuisance regressors to account for the effect of heart rate and respiratory variations by convolving physiological response functions (PRF) with the corresponding physiological signals. However, it has been suggested that the PRF characteristics may vary across subjects and different regions of the brain, as well as across scans of the same subject. To investigate the dependence of PRFs on these factors, we examine the performance of several different PRF models, in terms of BOLD variance explained, using resting-state fMRI data from the Human Connectome Project (N=100). We examined both one-input (heart rate or respiration) and two-input (heart rate and respiration) PRF models and show that allowing PRF curves to vary across subjects and brain regions generally improves PRF model performance. For one-input models, the improvement in model performance gained by allowing spatial variability was most prominent for respiration, particularly for a subset of the subjects (about a third) examined. Allowing for subject-specific or regional variability in the cardiac response function resulted in a significant model performance improvement only when using a two-input PRF model. Overall, our results highlight the importance of considering spatial and subject-specific variability in PRFs when analyzing fMRI data, particularly regarding respiratory-related fluctuations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".