IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0173289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing resting state fMRI de-noising approaches using multi- and single-echo acquisitions

Author

Listed:
  • Ottavia Dipasquale
  • Arjun Sethi
  • Maria Marcella Laganà
  • Francesca Baglio
  • Giuseppe Baselli
  • Prantik Kundu
  • Neil A Harrison
  • Mara Cercignani

Abstract

Artifact removal in resting state fMRI (rfMRI) data remains a serious challenge, with even subtle head motion undermining reliability and reproducibility. Here we compared some of the most popular single-echo de-noising methods—regression of Motion parameters, White matter and Cerebrospinal fluid signals (MWC method), FMRIB’s ICA-based X-noiseifier (FIX) and ICA-based Automatic Removal Of Motion Artifacts (ICA-AROMA)—with a multi-echo approach (ME-ICA) that exploits the linear dependency of BOLD on the echo time. Data were acquired using a clinical scanner and included 30 young, healthy participants (minimal head motion) and 30 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder patients (greater head motion). De-noising effectiveness was assessed in terms of data quality after each cleanup procedure, ability to uncouple BOLD signal and motion and preservation of default mode network (DMN) functional connectivity. Most cleaning methods showed a positive impact on data quality. However, based on the investigated metrics, ME-ICA was the most robust. It minimized the impact of motion on FC even for high motion participants and preserved DMN functional connectivity structure. The high-quality results obtained using ME-ICA suggest that using a multi-echo EPI sequence, reliable rfMRI data can be obtained in a clinical setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Ottavia Dipasquale & Arjun Sethi & Maria Marcella Laganà & Francesca Baglio & Giuseppe Baselli & Prantik Kundu & Neil A Harrison & Mara Cercignani, 2017. "Comparing resting state fMRI de-noising approaches using multi- and single-echo acquisitions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173289
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173289
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173289&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0173289?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Deen & Kevin Pelphrey, 2012. "Perspective: Brain scans need a rethink," Nature, Nature, vol. 491(7422), pages 20-20, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0173289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.