Search

Multi-echo fMRI data acquisition has been widely investigated and suggested to optimize sensitivity for detecting the BOLD signal. Several methods have also been proposed for the combination of data with different echo times. The aim of the present study was to investigate how these advance echo combination methods provide advantages over the simple averaging of echoes when state-of-the-art group-level random-effect analyses are performed. Both resting-state and task-based dual-echo fMRI data were collected from 27 healthy adult individuals (14 male, mean age = 25.75 years) using standard echo-planar acquisition methods at 3T. Both resting-state and task-based data were subjected to a standard image pre-processing pipeline. Subsequently the two echoes were combined as a weighted average, using four different strategies for calculating the weights: (1) simple arithmetic averaging, (2) BOLD sensitivity weighting, (3) temporal-signal-to-noise ratio weighting and (4) temporal BOLD sensitivity weighting. Our results clearly show that the simple averaging of data with the different echoes is sufficient. Advanced echo combination methods may provide advantages on a single-subject level but when considering random-effects group level statistics they provide no benefit regarding sensitivity (i.e. group-level t-values) compared to the simple echo-averaging approach. One possible reason for the lack of clear advantages may be that apart from increasing the average BOLD sensitivity at the single-subject level, the advanced weighted averaging methods also inflate the inter-subject variance. As the echo combination methods provide very similar results, the recommendation is to choose between them depending on the availability of time for collecting additional resting-state data or whether subject-level or group-level analyses are planned.

Multi-echo fMRI data acquisition has been widely investigated and suggested to optimize sensitivity for detecting the BOLD signal. Several methods have also been proposed for the combination of data with different echo times. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether these advanced echo combination methods provide advantages over the simple averaging of echoes when state-of-the-art group-level random-effect analyses are performed. Both resting-state and task-based dual-echo fMRI data were collected from 27 healthy adult individuals (14 male, mean age = 25.75 years) using standard echo-planar acquisition methods at 3T. Both resting-state and task-based data were subjected to a standard image pre-processing pipeline. Subsequently the two echoes were combined as a weighted average, using four different strategies for calculating the weights: (1) simple arithmetic averaging, (2) BOLD sensitivity weighting, (3) temporal-signal-to-noise ratio weighting and (4) temporal BOLD sensitivity weighting. Our results clearly show that the simple averaging of data with the different echoes is sufficient. Advanced echo combination methods may provide advantages on a single-subject level but when considering random-effects group level statistics they provide no benefit regarding sensitivity (i.e., group-level t-values) compared to the simple echo-averaging approach. One possible reason for the lack of clear advantages may be that apart from increasing the average BOLD sensitivity at the single-subject level, the advanced weighted averaging methods also inflate the inter-subject variance. As the echo combinationmethods provide very similar results, the recommendation is to choose between them depending on the availability of time for collecting additional resting-state data or whether subject-level or group-level analyses are planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data using the general linear model (GLM) employs a neural model convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function (HRF) peaking 5s after stimulation. Incorporation of a further basis function, namely the canonical HRF temporal derivative, accounts for delays in the hemodynamic response to neural activity. A population that may benefit from this flexible approach is children whose hemodynamic response is not yet mature. Here, we examined the effects of using the set based on the canonical HRF plus its temporal derivative on both first- and second-level GLM analyses, through simulations and using developmental data (an fMRI dataset on proprioceptive mapping in children and adults). Simulations of delayed fMRI first-level data emphasized the benefit of carrying forward to the second-level a derivative boost that combines derivative and nonderivative beta estimates. In the experimental data, second-level analysis using a paired t-test showed increased mean amplitude estimate (i.e., increased group contrast mean) in several brain regions related to proprioceptive processing when using the derivative boost compared to using only the nonderivative term. This was true especially in children. However, carrying forward to the second-level the individual derivative boosts had adverse consequences on random-effects analysis that implemented one-sample t-test, yielding increased between-subject variance, thus affecting group-level statistic. Boosted data also presented a lower level of smoothness that had implication for the detection of group average activation. Imposing soft constraints on the derivative boost by limiting the time-to-peak range of the modelled response within a specified range (i.e., 4-6s) mitigated these issues. These findings support the notion that there are pros and cons to using the informed basis set with developmental data.

Conventional analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data using the general linear model (GLM) employs a neural model convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function (HRF) peaking 5 s after stimulation. Incorporation of a further basis function, namely the canonical HRF temporal derivative, accounts for delays in the hemodynamic response to neural activity. A population that may benefit from this flexible approach is children whose hemodynamic response is not yet mature. Here, we examined the effects of using the set based on the canonical HRF plus its temporal derivative on both first- and second-level GLM analyses, through simulations and using developmental data (an fMRI dataset on proprioceptive mapping in children and adults). Simulations of delayed fMRI first-level data emphasized the benefit of carrying forward to the second-level a derivative boost that combines derivative and nonderivative beta estimates. In the experimental data, second-level analysis using a paired t-test showed increased mean amplitude estimate (i.e., increased group contrast mean) in several brain regions related to proprioceptive processing when using the derivative boost compared to using only the nonderivative term. This was true especially in children. However, carrying forward to the second-level the individual derivative boosts had adverse consequences on random-effects analysis that implemented one-sample t-test, yielding increased between-subject variance, thus affecting group-level statistic. Boosted data also presented a lower level of smoothness that had implication for the detection of group average activation. Imposing soft constraints on the derivative boost by limiting the time-to-peak range of the modeled response within a specified range (i.e., 4-6 s) mitigated these issues. These findings support the notion that there are pros and cons to using the informed basis set with developmental data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a method for monitoring hemoglobin responses using optical probes placed on the scalp. fNIRS spatial resolution is limited by the distance between channels defined as a pair of source and detector, and channel positions are often inconsistent across subjects. These challenges can lead to less accurate estimate of group level effects from channel-specific measurements. New method This paper addresses this shortcoming by applying random-effects analysis using summary statistics to interpolated fNIRS topographic images. Specifically, we generate individual contrast images containing the experimental effects of interest in a canonical scalp surface. Random-effects analysis then allows for making inference about the regionally specific effects induced by (potentially) multiple experimental factors in a population. Results We illustrate the approach using experimental data acquired during a colour-word matching Stroop task, and show that left frontopolar regions are significantly activated in a population during Stroop effects. This result agrees with previous neuroimaging findings. Compared with existing methods The proposed methods (i) address potential misalignment of sensor locations between subjects using spatial interpolation; (ii) produce experimental effects of interest either on a 2D regular grid or on a 3D triangular mesh, both representations of a canonical scalp surface; and (iii) enables one to infer population effects from fNIRS data using a computationally efficient summary statistic approach (random-effects analysis). Significance of regional effects is assessed using random field theory. Conclusions In this paper, we have shown how fNIRS data from multiple subjects can be analysed in sensor space using random-effects analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This note concerns mixed-effect (MFX) analyses in multisession functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. It clarifies the relationship between mixed-effect analyses and the two-stage “summary statistics” procedure (Holmes, A.P., Friston, K.J., 1998. Generalisability, random effects and population inference. NeuroImage 7, S754) that has been adopted widely for analyses of fMRI data at the group level. We describe a simple procedure, based on restricted maximum likelihood (ReML) estimates of covariance components, that enables full mixed-effects analyses in the context of statistical parametric mapping. Using this procedure, we compare the results of a full mixed-effects analysis with those obtained from the simpler two-stage procedure and comment on the situations when the two approaches may give different results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]