Cargando…

Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis

Resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs‐fMRI) offers the possibility to assess brain function independent of explicit tasks and individual performance. This absence of explicit stimuli in rs‐fMRI makes analyses more susceptible to nonneural signal fluctuations than task‐based fMRI. D...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Woletz, Michael, Hoffmann, André, Tik, Martin, Sladky, Ronald, Lanzenberger, Rupert, Robinson, Simon, Windischberger, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30430691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24468
_version_ 1783429123924819968
author Woletz, Michael
Hoffmann, André
Tik, Martin
Sladky, Ronald
Lanzenberger, Rupert
Robinson, Simon
Windischberger, Christian
author_facet Woletz, Michael
Hoffmann, André
Tik, Martin
Sladky, Ronald
Lanzenberger, Rupert
Robinson, Simon
Windischberger, Christian
author_sort Woletz, Michael
collection PubMed
description Resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs‐fMRI) offers the possibility to assess brain function independent of explicit tasks and individual performance. This absence of explicit stimuli in rs‐fMRI makes analyses more susceptible to nonneural signal fluctuations than task‐based fMRI. Data preprocessing is a critical procedure to minimise contamination by artefacts related to motion and physiology. We herein investigate the effects of different preprocessing strategies on the amplitude of low‐frequency fluctuations (ALFFs) and its fractional counterpart, fractional ALFF (fALFF). Sixteen artefact reduction schemes based on nuisance regression are applied to data from 82 subjects acquired at 1.5 T, 30 subjects at 3 T, and 23 subjects at 7 T, respectively. In addition, we examine test–retest variance and effects of bias correction. In total, 569 data sets are included in this study. Our results show that full artefact reduction reduced test–retest variance by up to 50%. Polynomial detrending of rs‐fMRI data has a positive effect on group‐level t‐values for ALFF but, importantly, a negative effect for fALFF. We show that the normalisation process intrinsic to fALFF calculation causes the observed reduction and introduce a novel measure for low‐frequency fluctuations denoted as high‐frequency ALFF (hfALFF). We demonstrate that hfALFF values are not affected by the negative detrending effects seen in fALFF data. Still, highest grey matter (GM) group‐level t‐values were obtained for fALFF data without detrending, even when compared to an exploratory detrending approach based on autocorrelation measures. From our results, we recommend the use of full nuisance regression including polynomial detrending in ALFF data, but to refrain from using polynomial detrending in fALFF data. Such optimised preprocessing increases GM group‐level t‐values by up to 60%.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6587723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65877232019-07-02 Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis Woletz, Michael Hoffmann, André Tik, Martin Sladky, Ronald Lanzenberger, Rupert Robinson, Simon Windischberger, Christian Hum Brain Mapp Research Articles Resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs‐fMRI) offers the possibility to assess brain function independent of explicit tasks and individual performance. This absence of explicit stimuli in rs‐fMRI makes analyses more susceptible to nonneural signal fluctuations than task‐based fMRI. Data preprocessing is a critical procedure to minimise contamination by artefacts related to motion and physiology. We herein investigate the effects of different preprocessing strategies on the amplitude of low‐frequency fluctuations (ALFFs) and its fractional counterpart, fractional ALFF (fALFF). Sixteen artefact reduction schemes based on nuisance regression are applied to data from 82 subjects acquired at 1.5 T, 30 subjects at 3 T, and 23 subjects at 7 T, respectively. In addition, we examine test–retest variance and effects of bias correction. In total, 569 data sets are included in this study. Our results show that full artefact reduction reduced test–retest variance by up to 50%. Polynomial detrending of rs‐fMRI data has a positive effect on group‐level t‐values for ALFF but, importantly, a negative effect for fALFF. We show that the normalisation process intrinsic to fALFF calculation causes the observed reduction and introduce a novel measure for low‐frequency fluctuations denoted as high‐frequency ALFF (hfALFF). We demonstrate that hfALFF values are not affected by the negative detrending effects seen in fALFF data. Still, highest grey matter (GM) group‐level t‐values were obtained for fALFF data without detrending, even when compared to an exploratory detrending approach based on autocorrelation measures. From our results, we recommend the use of full nuisance regression including polynomial detrending in ALFF data, but to refrain from using polynomial detrending in fALFF data. Such optimised preprocessing increases GM group‐level t‐values by up to 60%. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6587723/ /pubmed/30430691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24468 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Woletz, Michael
Hoffmann, André
Tik, Martin
Sladky, Ronald
Lanzenberger, Rupert
Robinson, Simon
Windischberger, Christian
Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title_full Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title_fullStr Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title_full_unstemmed Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title_short Beware detrending: Optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
title_sort beware detrending: optimal preprocessing pipeline for low‐frequency fluctuation analysis
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30430691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24468
work_keys_str_mv AT woletzmichael bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT hoffmannandre bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT tikmartin bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT sladkyronald bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT lanzenbergerrupert bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT robinsonsimon bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis
AT windischbergerchristian bewaredetrendingoptimalpreprocessingpipelineforlowfrequencyfluctuationanalysis