Cargando…

Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review

Neurofeedback training using real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rtfMRI‐NF) allows subjects voluntary control of localised and distributed brain activity. It has sparked increased interest as a promising non‐invasive treatment option in neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive disorders, alt...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heunis, Stephan, Lamerichs, Rolf, Zinger, Svitlana, Caballero‐Gaudes, Cesar, Jansen, Jacobus F. A., Aldenkamp, Bert, Breeuwer, Marcel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32333624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25010
_version_ 1783561821676896256
author Heunis, Stephan
Lamerichs, Rolf
Zinger, Svitlana
Caballero‐Gaudes, Cesar
Jansen, Jacobus F. A.
Aldenkamp, Bert
Breeuwer, Marcel
author_facet Heunis, Stephan
Lamerichs, Rolf
Zinger, Svitlana
Caballero‐Gaudes, Cesar
Jansen, Jacobus F. A.
Aldenkamp, Bert
Breeuwer, Marcel
author_sort Heunis, Stephan
collection PubMed
description Neurofeedback training using real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rtfMRI‐NF) allows subjects voluntary control of localised and distributed brain activity. It has sparked increased interest as a promising non‐invasive treatment option in neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive disorders, although its efficacy and clinical significance are yet to be determined. In this work, we present the first extensive review of acquisition, processing and quality control methods available to improve the quality of the neurofeedback signal. Furthermore, we investigate the state of denoising and quality control practices in 128 recently published rtfMRI‐NF studies. We found: (a) that less than a third of the studies reported implementing standard real‐time fMRI denoising steps, (b) significant room for improvement with regards to methods reporting and (c) the need for methodological studies quantifying and comparing the contribution of denoising steps to the neurofeedback signal quality. Advances in rtfMRI‐NF research depend on reproducibility of methods and results. Notably, a systematic effort is needed to build up evidence that disentangles the various mechanisms influencing neurofeedback effects. To this end, we recommend that future rtfMRI‐NF studies: (a) report implementation of a set of standard real‐time fMRI denoising steps according to a proposed COBIDAS‐style checklist (https://osf.io/kjwhf/), (b) ensure the quality of the neurofeedback signal by calculating and reporting community‐informed quality metrics and applying offline control checks and (c) strive to adopt transparent principles in the form of methods and data sharing and support of open‐source rtfMRI‐NF software. Code and data for reproducibility, as well as an interactive environment to explore the study data, can be accessed at https://github.com/jsheunis/quality‐and‐denoising‐in‐rtfmri‐nf.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7375116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73751162020-07-22 Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review Heunis, Stephan Lamerichs, Rolf Zinger, Svitlana Caballero‐Gaudes, Cesar Jansen, Jacobus F. A. Aldenkamp, Bert Breeuwer, Marcel Hum Brain Mapp Review Articles Neurofeedback training using real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rtfMRI‐NF) allows subjects voluntary control of localised and distributed brain activity. It has sparked increased interest as a promising non‐invasive treatment option in neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive disorders, although its efficacy and clinical significance are yet to be determined. In this work, we present the first extensive review of acquisition, processing and quality control methods available to improve the quality of the neurofeedback signal. Furthermore, we investigate the state of denoising and quality control practices in 128 recently published rtfMRI‐NF studies. We found: (a) that less than a third of the studies reported implementing standard real‐time fMRI denoising steps, (b) significant room for improvement with regards to methods reporting and (c) the need for methodological studies quantifying and comparing the contribution of denoising steps to the neurofeedback signal quality. Advances in rtfMRI‐NF research depend on reproducibility of methods and results. Notably, a systematic effort is needed to build up evidence that disentangles the various mechanisms influencing neurofeedback effects. To this end, we recommend that future rtfMRI‐NF studies: (a) report implementation of a set of standard real‐time fMRI denoising steps according to a proposed COBIDAS‐style checklist (https://osf.io/kjwhf/), (b) ensure the quality of the neurofeedback signal by calculating and reporting community‐informed quality metrics and applying offline control checks and (c) strive to adopt transparent principles in the form of methods and data sharing and support of open‐source rtfMRI‐NF software. Code and data for reproducibility, as well as an interactive environment to explore the study data, can be accessed at https://github.com/jsheunis/quality‐and‐denoising‐in‐rtfmri‐nf. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7375116/ /pubmed/32333624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25010 Text en © 2020 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 Review Articles
Heunis, Stephan
Lamerichs, Rolf
Zinger, Svitlana
Caballero‐Gaudes, Cesar
Jansen, Jacobus F. A.
Aldenkamp, Bert
Breeuwer, Marcel
Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title_full Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title_fullStr Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title_full_unstemmed Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title_short Quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review
title_sort quality and denoising in real‐time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: a methods review
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32333624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25010
work_keys_str_mv AT heunisstephan qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT lamerichsrolf qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT zingersvitlana qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT caballerogaudescesar qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT jansenjacobusfa qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT aldenkampbert qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview
AT breeuwermarcel qualityanddenoisinginrealtimefunctionalmagneticresonanceimagingneurofeedbackamethodsreview