2005
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20096
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated quality assurance routines for fMRI data applied to a multicenter study

Abstract: Standard procedures to achieve quality assessment (QA) of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data are of great importance. A standardized and fully automated procedure for QA is presented that allows for classification of data quality and the detection of artifacts by inspecting temporal variations. The application of the procedure on phantom measurements was used to check scanner and stimulation hardware performance. In vivo imaging data were checked efficiently for artifacts within the standard fMR… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
90
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
90
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Realignment parameters (x, y, z, pitch, roll, and yaw) and 'percent signal change'Fan index of data variability and quality control (Stöcker et al, 2005)Fwere added as covariates. The resulting intrasubject contrast images entered random effects group analysis by means of repeated-measures ANOVA (mixed design) with the withinsubject factor 'emotion' and the between-subject factor 'group'.…”
Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Realignment parameters (x, y, z, pitch, roll, and yaw) and 'percent signal change'Fan index of data variability and quality control (Stöcker et al, 2005)Fwere added as covariates. The resulting intrasubject contrast images entered random effects group analysis by means of repeated-measures ANOVA (mixed design) with the withinsubject factor 'emotion' and the between-subject factor 'group'.…”
Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the 72 data sets, 11 were discarded due to intense head movements (n = 2: movement of more than twice the voxel size along the z axis and pitching the head > 3°; n = 1: pitching the head > 3°) or intense artifacts in the MRI raw data (n = 1) or because they did not meet the joint multicenter quality criteria (n = 6: > 2.5 SDs) on the point spread function [44] or signal-to-fluctuation noise ratio (SFNR) [45]. One patient dropped out during CBT treat- Values are presented as mean ± SD unless specified otherwise.…”
Section: Data Inclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, data from all centers have been iteratively smoothed until a smoothness of 12-mm full width at half maximum was reached, independently of scanner-specific intrinsic smoothness of the data. Finally, the data quality [55,56] of the acquired data was carefully checked to avoid systematic differences between the patient and control groups [1]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%