Modeling the hemodynamic response function in fMRI: Efficiency, bias and mis-modeling

Abstract

Most brain research to date has focused on studying the amplitude of evoked fMRI responses, though there has recently been an increased interest in measuring onset, peak latency and duration of the responses as well. A number of modeling procedures provide measures of the latency and duration of fMRI responses. In this work we compare several techniques that vary in their assumptions, model complexity, and interpretation. For each method, we introduce methods for estimating amplitude, peak latency, and duration and for performing inference in a multi-subject fMRI setting. We then assess the techniques’ relative sensitivity and their propensity for mis-attributing task effects on one parameter (e.g., duration) to another (e.g., amplitude). Finally, we introduce methods for quantifying model misspecification and assessing bias and power-loss related to the choice of model. Overall, the results show that it is surprisingly difficult to accurately recover true task-evoked changes in BOLD signal and that there are substantial differences among models in terms of power, bias and parameter confusability. Because virtually all fMRI studies in cognitive and affective neuroscience employ these models, the results bear on the interpretation of hemodynamic response estimates across a wide variety of psychological and neuroscientific studies.

Brain activation to cues predicting inescapable delay in adolescent Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An fMRI pilot study

“…The Escape Delay Incentive ( however, can lead to fitting implausible shapes (Calhoun et al, 2004) and decreased power (Lindquist et al, 2009). …”

On the distinguishability of HRF models in fMRI

“…A number of studies have addressed the problem of systematically assessing the quality of fMRI experimental designs, both in terms of the ability to detect stimulus/task-related BOLD activation (detection power) and the ability to estimate the HRF model (estimation efficiency) in a given amount of imaging time (Dale, 1999;Liu et al, 2001). Different methodologies have been proposed to determine the optimal design of fMRI experiments for maximal estimation efficiency (Buracas and Boynton, 2002;Wager and Nichols, 2003;Maus et al, 2012), and a few studies have compared different HRF models and the associated estimation efficiency, focusing on specific parameters of interest such as the response latency and duration (Lindquist and Wager, 2007;Lindquist et al, 2009). Importantly, the authors were concerned with the physiological plausibility of the estimated HRF parameters and with their independence, such that differences in one parameter are not confounded with differences in another parameter.…”

Quantitative mapping of cerebrovascular reactivity using resting-state BOLD fMRI: Validation in healthy adults

“…First, the PETCO 2 signal and the BOLD signal were cross-correlated to find time lag that maximizes the cross correlation. The BOLD signal was shifted one frame at a time, and was assumed to always lag the PETCO 2 signal (Lindquist et al, 2009). In addition, voxels with lag >100 frames (~40 s) do not conform with physiological restrictions and thus were ignored.…”