2020
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dissimilarity of functional connectivity uncovers the influence of participant's motion in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

Abstract: Head motion is a major confounding factor impairing the quality of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. In particular, head motion can reduce analytical efficiency, and its effects are still present even after preprocessing. To examine the validity of motion removal and to evaluate the remaining effects of motion on the quality of the preprocessed fMRI data, a new metric of group quality control (QC), dissimilarity of functional connectivity, is introduced. Here, we investigate the association be… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The number of censored motion volumes after preprocessing reflects the extent of motion of a subject during scanning. Any subject with <120 remaining volumes was excluded, which guaranteed a minimum of 5-min-scanning images for FC analysis ( 29 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of censored motion volumes after preprocessing reflects the extent of motion of a subject during scanning. Any subject with <120 remaining volumes was excluded, which guaranteed a minimum of 5-min-scanning images for FC analysis ( 29 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of both groups were summarized in Table 2 . For the RS-fMRI image quality, mFD of all subjects including HCs was less than 0.2 mm [41]; as shown in Supplementary Fig. 3 , a mixed model determined that there was no statistically significant difference in brain motion during scanning, represented by log (mFD), across the three assessments between the imVR and the Control groups ( p = 0.806).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each subject, their degree map was generated from the brain FCN by calculating the number of functional links of each gray matter voxel. The links within two adjacent voxels were excluded due to the effect of motion [38, 41]. To compare degrees between the imVR and the Control groups, we used a general linear model (GLM) with degree at post-intervention and at follow-up, respectively, as the dependent variable, the two groups as the independent variable, baseline degree, age, sex, side of brain lesion, time since stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and mFD as confounds; family-wise cluster correction ( t value > 3.5, p < 0.01) [42] was applied afterward.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, denoising of the data was performed in Matlab (R2019a) using custom scripts to regress out the following noise regressors: five aCompCor principal components from both the segmented WM and CSF [ 59 ], 24 motion parameters (3 rotation, 3 translation, their derivatives and quadratic terms [ 60 ]; cosine filters (128 s cut off)—low-frequency signal drift—regressors, and spike regressors for each frame that exceeded a threshold of 0.5 mm FD [ 61 , 62 ].…”
Section: Participants and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%