2014
DOI: 10.1007/s00429-014-0874-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust brain parcellation using sparse representation on resting-state fMRI

Abstract: Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) has been widely used to segregate the brain into individual modules based on the presence of distinct connectivity patterns. Many parcellation methods have been proposed for brain parcellation using rs-fMRI, but their results have been somewhat inconsistent, potentially due to various types of noise. In this study, we provide a robust parcellation method for rs-fMRI-based brain parcellation, which constructs a sparse similarity graph based on the sparse representation coefficients … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
2
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For GMVCorr (Figure c), we calculated the Pearson correlation between the GMV of each hippocampal ROI voxel (from the 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 mm 3 set) and those from each nonhippocampal voxel in the rest of the brain (from the 3 × 3 × 3 mm 3 set; downsampling was used to obtain sufficient spatial resolution for each ROI region and to meet reasonable computational and memory requirements) across all 198 subjects. The coefficient matrix C ∈ R v × w of all ROI voxels was calculated ( v and w were the number of voxels over the ROI region and nonhippocampal regions), and a symmetric nonnegative similarity matrix W (Elhamifar & Vidal, ; Ge et al, ) was constructed from the coefficient matrix: W = | C · E − 1 · C T |∈ R v × v (Zhang et al, ), where E was the diagonal matrix saving the column summations of the coefficient matrix C and T denoted transposition. The similarity matrix W was then fed into a spectral clustering algorithm (Ge et al, ; Ng, Jordan, & Weiss, ) to generate the final parcellations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For GMVCorr (Figure c), we calculated the Pearson correlation between the GMV of each hippocampal ROI voxel (from the 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 mm 3 set) and those from each nonhippocampal voxel in the rest of the brain (from the 3 × 3 × 3 mm 3 set; downsampling was used to obtain sufficient spatial resolution for each ROI region and to meet reasonable computational and memory requirements) across all 198 subjects. The coefficient matrix C ∈ R v × w of all ROI voxels was calculated ( v and w were the number of voxels over the ROI region and nonhippocampal regions), and a symmetric nonnegative similarity matrix W (Elhamifar & Vidal, ; Ge et al, ) was constructed from the coefficient matrix: W = | C · E − 1 · C T |∈ R v × v (Zhang et al, ), where E was the diagonal matrix saving the column summations of the coefficient matrix C and T denoted transposition. The similarity matrix W was then fed into a spectral clustering algorithm (Ge et al, ; Ng, Jordan, & Weiss, ) to generate the final parcellations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This defect restricts the use of this technique. Both a whole brain connectivity strategy and the local covariance have been used in resting state fMRI-based parcellations (Yeo et al, 2011; Zhang et al, 2014). Since our goal was to obtain brain function-structure mapping, we were obliged to dig deeply into the task-fMRI data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the covariance of resting state signal fluctuations is conceptually different from these methods, some researchers have directly used covariance to parcellate brain areas (Zhang et al, 2014). Similarly, another study used the Brainmap database to investigate the covariance within the activation pattern rather than focusing on co-activations (Smith et al, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, both noise and redundancy of the neuroimaging and genetic data could reduce the rank of the data, which may make it difficult to obtain robust machine learning models from such data (Vounou et al 2012; Greenlaw et al 2017; Lu et al 2017). To alleviate the “curse of dimensionality” problem, data reduction techniques have been widely adopted in imaging-genetics studies, including linear subspace analysis methods and supervoxel methods (Fan et al 2005, 2007; Zhang et al 2015). In particular, linear subspace learning methods, such as principle component analysis (PCA), have been used to project voxelwise measures into a small number of components, and the supervoxel methods parcellate the brain into regions of interest (ROIs) by adopting anatomical atlases or clustering image voxels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%