Cargando…

Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise

BACKGROUND: The assumption that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) noise has constant volatility has recently been challenged by studies examining heteroscedasticity arising from head motion and physiological noise. The present study builds on this work using latest methods from the field...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leppanen, Jenni, Stone, Henry, Lythgoe, David J., Williams, Steven, Horvath, Blanka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2021.02.009
_version_ 1783669293316046848
author Leppanen, Jenni
Stone, Henry
Lythgoe, David J.
Williams, Steven
Horvath, Blanka
author_facet Leppanen, Jenni
Stone, Henry
Lythgoe, David J.
Williams, Steven
Horvath, Blanka
author_sort Leppanen, Jenni
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The assumption that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) noise has constant volatility has recently been challenged by studies examining heteroscedasticity arising from head motion and physiological noise. The present study builds on this work using latest methods from the field of financial mathematics to model fMRI noise volatility. METHODS: Multi-echo phantom and human fMRI scans were used and realised volatility was estimated. The Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1), which governs the roughness/irregularity of realised volatility time series, was estimated. Calibration of H was performed pathwise, using well-established neural network calibration tools. RESULTS: In all experiments the volatility calibrated to values within the rough case, H < 0.5, and on average fMRI noise was very rough with 0.03 < H < 0.05. Some edge effects were also observed, whereby H was larger near the edges of the phantoms. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that fMRI volatility is not only non-constant, but also substantially more irregular than a standard Brownian motion. Thus, further research is needed to examine the impact such pronounced oscillations in the volatility of fMRI noise have on data analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7992030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79920302021-05-01 Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise Leppanen, Jenni Stone, Henry Lythgoe, David J. Williams, Steven Horvath, Blanka Magn Reson Imaging Original Contribution BACKGROUND: The assumption that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) noise has constant volatility has recently been challenged by studies examining heteroscedasticity arising from head motion and physiological noise. The present study builds on this work using latest methods from the field of financial mathematics to model fMRI noise volatility. METHODS: Multi-echo phantom and human fMRI scans were used and realised volatility was estimated. The Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1), which governs the roughness/irregularity of realised volatility time series, was estimated. Calibration of H was performed pathwise, using well-established neural network calibration tools. RESULTS: In all experiments the volatility calibrated to values within the rough case, H < 0.5, and on average fMRI noise was very rough with 0.03 < H < 0.05. Some edge effects were also observed, whereby H was larger near the edges of the phantoms. DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that fMRI volatility is not only non-constant, but also substantially more irregular than a standard Brownian motion. Thus, further research is needed to examine the impact such pronounced oscillations in the volatility of fMRI noise have on data analyses. Elsevier 2021-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7992030/ /pubmed/33588017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2021.02.009 Text en © 2021 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Contribution
Leppanen, Jenni
Stone, Henry
Lythgoe, David J.
Williams, Steven
Horvath, Blanka
Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title_full Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title_fullStr Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title_full_unstemmed Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title_short Sailing in rough waters: Examining volatility of fMRI noise
title_sort sailing in rough waters: examining volatility of fmri noise
topic Original Contribution
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2021.02.009
work_keys_str_mv AT leppanenjenni sailinginroughwatersexaminingvolatilityoffmrinoise
AT stonehenry sailinginroughwatersexaminingvolatilityoffmrinoise
AT lythgoedavidj sailinginroughwatersexaminingvolatilityoffmrinoise
AT williamssteven sailinginroughwatersexaminingvolatilityoffmrinoise
AT horvathblanka sailinginroughwatersexaminingvolatilityoffmrinoise