Cargando…

Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex

Sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) enables stronger primary auditory cortex blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal by acquiring volumes interspersed with silence, reducing the physiological artifacts associated with scanner noise. Recent calculations of type I error rates associated with re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manno, Francis A. M., Fernandez-Ruiz, Juan, Manno, Sinai H. C., Cheng, Shuk Han, Lau, Condon, Barrios, Fernando A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6554478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31213968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00516
_version_ 1783424977508237312
author Manno, Francis A. M.
Fernandez-Ruiz, Juan
Manno, Sinai H. C.
Cheng, Shuk Han
Lau, Condon
Barrios, Fernando A.
author_facet Manno, Francis A. M.
Fernandez-Ruiz, Juan
Manno, Sinai H. C.
Cheng, Shuk Han
Lau, Condon
Barrios, Fernando A.
author_sort Manno, Francis A. M.
collection PubMed
description Sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) enables stronger primary auditory cortex blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal by acquiring volumes interspersed with silence, reducing the physiological artifacts associated with scanner noise. Recent calculations of type I error rates associated with resting-state fMRI suggest that the techniques used to model the hemodynamic response function (HRF) might be resulting in higher false positives than is generally acceptable. In the present study, we analyze ssfMRI to determine type I error rates associated with whole brain and primary auditory cortex voxel-wise activation patterns. Study participants (n = 15, age 27.62 ± 3.21 years, range: 22–33 years; 6 females) underwent ssfMRI. An optimized paradigm was used to determine the HRF to auditory stimuli, which was then substituted for silent stimuli to ascertain false positives. We report that common techniques used for analyzing ssfMRI result in high type I error rates. The whole brain and primary auditory cortex voxel-wise analysis resulted in similar error distributions. The number of type I errors for P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001 for the whole brain was 7.88 ± 9.29, 2.37 ± 3.54, and 0.53 ± 0.96% and for the auditory cortex was 9.02 ± 1.79, 2.95 ± 0.91, and 0.58 ± 0.21%, respectively. When conducting a ssfMRI analysis, conservative α level should be employed (α < 0.001) to bolster the results in the face of false positive results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6554478
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65544782019-06-18 Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex Manno, Francis A. M. Fernandez-Ruiz, Juan Manno, Sinai H. C. Cheng, Shuk Han Lau, Condon Barrios, Fernando A. Front Neurosci Neuroscience Sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) enables stronger primary auditory cortex blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal by acquiring volumes interspersed with silence, reducing the physiological artifacts associated with scanner noise. Recent calculations of type I error rates associated with resting-state fMRI suggest that the techniques used to model the hemodynamic response function (HRF) might be resulting in higher false positives than is generally acceptable. In the present study, we analyze ssfMRI to determine type I error rates associated with whole brain and primary auditory cortex voxel-wise activation patterns. Study participants (n = 15, age 27.62 ± 3.21 years, range: 22–33 years; 6 females) underwent ssfMRI. An optimized paradigm was used to determine the HRF to auditory stimuli, which was then substituted for silent stimuli to ascertain false positives. We report that common techniques used for analyzing ssfMRI result in high type I error rates. The whole brain and primary auditory cortex voxel-wise analysis resulted in similar error distributions. The number of type I errors for P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001 for the whole brain was 7.88 ± 9.29, 2.37 ± 3.54, and 0.53 ± 0.96% and for the auditory cortex was 9.02 ± 1.79, 2.95 ± 0.91, and 0.58 ± 0.21%, respectively. When conducting a ssfMRI analysis, conservative α level should be employed (α < 0.001) to bolster the results in the face of false positive results. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6554478/ /pubmed/31213968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00516 Text en Copyright © 2019 Manno, Fernandez-Ruiz, Manno, Cheng, Lau and Barrios. 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) and the copyright owner(s) 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
Manno, Francis A. M.
Fernandez-Ruiz, Juan
Manno, Sinai H. C.
Cheng, Shuk Han
Lau, Condon
Barrios, Fernando A.
Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title_full Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title_fullStr Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title_full_unstemmed Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title_short Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex
title_sort sparse sampling of silence type i errors with an emphasis on primary auditory cortex
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6554478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31213968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00516
work_keys_str_mv AT mannofrancisam sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex
AT fernandezruizjuan sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex
AT mannosinaihc sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex
AT chengshukhan sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex
AT laucondon sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex
AT barriosfernandoa sparsesamplingofsilencetypeierrorswithanemphasisonprimaryauditorycortex