Physiological Confounds in BOLD‐fMRI and Their Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has opened new frontiers in neuroscience by instrumentally driving our understanding of brain function and development. Despite its substantial successes, fMRI studies persistently encounter obstacles stemming from inherent, unavoidable physiological confounds. The adverse effects of these confounds are especially noticeable with higher magnetic fields, which have been gaining momentum in fMRI experiments. This review focuses on the four major physiological confounds impacting fMRI studies: low-frequency fluctuations in both breathing depth and rate, low-frequency fluctuations in the heart rate, thoracic movements, and cardiac pulsatility. Over the past three decades, numerous correction techniques have emerged to address these challenges. Correction methods have effectively enhanced the detection of task-activated voxels and minimized the occurrence of false positives and false negatives in functional connectivity studies. While confound correction methods have merit, they also have certain limitations. For instance, model-based approaches require externally recorded physiological data that is often unavailable in fMRI studies. Methods reliant on independent component analysis, on the other hand, need prior knowledge about the number of components. Machine learning techniques, although showing potential, are still in the early stages of development and require additional validation. This article reviews the mechanics of physiological confound correction methods, scrutinizes their performance and limitations, and discusses their impact on fMRI studies.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".