IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0063448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing Complexity Measures for fMRI Data: Algorithm, Artifact, and Sensitivity

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Rubin
  • Tomer Fekete
  • Lilianne R Mujica-Parodi

Abstract

Introduction: Complexity in the brain has been well-documented at both neuronal and hemodynamic scales, with increasing evidence supporting its use in sensitively differentiating between mental states and disorders. However, application of complexity measures to fMRI time-series, which are short, sparse, and have low signal/noise, requires careful modality-specific optimization. Methods: Here we use both simulated and real data to address two fundamental issues: choice of algorithm and degree/type of signal processing. Methods were evaluated with regard to resilience to acquisition artifacts common to fMRI as well as detection sensitivity. Detection sensitivity was quantified in terms of grey-white matter contrast and overlap with activation. We additionally investigated the variation of complexity with activation and emotional content, optimal task length, and the degree to which results scaled with scanner using the same paradigm with two 3T magnets made by different manufacturers. Methods for evaluating complexity were: power spectrum, structure function, wavelet decomposition, second derivative, rescaled range, Higuchi’s estimate of fractal dimension, aggregated variance, and detrended fluctuation analysis. To permit direct comparison across methods, all results were normalized to Hurst exponents. Results: Power-spectrum, Higuchi’s fractal dimension, and generalized Hurst exponent based estimates were most successful by all criteria; the poorest-performing measures were wavelet, detrended fluctuation analysis, aggregated variance, and rescaled range. Conclusions: Functional MRI data have artifacts that interact with complexity calculations in nontrivially distinct ways compared to other physiological data (such as EKG, EEG) for which these measures are typically used. Our results clearly demonstrate that decisions regarding choice of algorithm, signal processing, time-series length, and scanner have a significant impact on the reliability and sensitivity of complexity estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Rubin & Tomer Fekete & Lilianne R Mujica-Parodi, 2013. "Optimizing Complexity Measures for fMRI Data: Algorithm, Artifact, and Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063448
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063448
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063448&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0063448?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0063448. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.