Cargando…

Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability 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 tem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cignetti, Fabien, Salvia, Emilie, Anton, Jean-Luc, Grosbras, Marie-Hélène, Assaiante, Christine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945642/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27471441
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00322
_version_ 1782442900896874496
author Cignetti, Fabien
Salvia, Emilie
Anton, Jean-Luc
Grosbras, Marie-Hélène
Assaiante, Christine
author_facet Cignetti, Fabien
Salvia, Emilie
Anton, Jean-Luc
Grosbras, Marie-Hélène
Assaiante, Christine
author_sort Cignetti, Fabien
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4945642
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49456422016-07-28 Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data Cignetti, Fabien Salvia, Emilie Anton, Jean-Luc Grosbras, Marie-Hélène Assaiante, Christine Front Neurosci Neuroscience 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4945642/ /pubmed/27471441 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00322 Text en Copyright © 2016 Cignetti, Salvia, Anton, Grosbras and Assaiante. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Cignetti, Fabien
Salvia, Emilie
Anton, Jean-Luc
Grosbras, Marie-Hélène
Assaiante, Christine
Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title_full Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title_fullStr Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title_full_unstemmed Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title_short Pros and Cons of Using the Informed Basis Set to Account for Hemodynamic Response Variability with Developmental Data
title_sort pros and cons of using the informed basis set to account for hemodynamic response variability with developmental data
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945642/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27471441
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00322
work_keys_str_mv AT cignettifabien prosandconsofusingtheinformedbasissettoaccountforhemodynamicresponsevariabilitywithdevelopmentaldata
AT salviaemilie prosandconsofusingtheinformedbasissettoaccountforhemodynamicresponsevariabilitywithdevelopmentaldata
AT antonjeanluc prosandconsofusingtheinformedbasissettoaccountforhemodynamicresponsevariabilitywithdevelopmentaldata
AT grosbrasmariehelene prosandconsofusingtheinformedbasissettoaccountforhemodynamicresponsevariabilitywithdevelopmentaldata
AT assaiantechristine prosandconsofusingtheinformedbasissettoaccountforhemodynamicresponsevariabilitywithdevelopmentaldata