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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |