Open AccessA comparison of denoising pipelines in high temporal resolution task‐based functional magnetic resonance imaging data
Author(s) -
Mayer Andrew R.,
Ling Josef M.,
Dodd Andrew B.,
Shaff Nicholas A.,
Wertz Christopher J.,
Hanlon Faith M.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
human brain mapping
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.005
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1097-0193
pISSN - 1065-9471
DOI - 10.1002/hbm.24635
Subject(s) - noise reduction , noise (video) , signal (programming language) , artificial intelligence , functional magnetic resonance imaging , computer science , signal to noise ratio (imaging) , pattern recognition (psychology) , focus (optics) , blind signal separation , computer vision , speech recognition , channel (broadcasting) , psychology , physics , telecommunications , computer network , image (mathematics) , programming language , neuroscience , optics
Abstract It has been known for decades that head motion/other artifacts affect the blood oxygen level‐dependent signal. Recent recommendations predominantly focus on denoising resting state data, which may not apply to task data due to the different statistical relationships that exist between signal and noise sources. Several blind‐source denoising strategies (FIX and AROMA) and more standard motion parameter (MP) regression (0, 12, or 24 parameters) analyses were therefore compared across four sets of event‐related functional magnetic resonance imaging (erfMRI) and block‐design (bdfMRI) datasets collected with multiband 32‐ (repetition time [TR] = 460 ms) or older 12‐channel (TR = 2,000 ms) head coils. The amount of motion varied across coil designs and task types. Quality control plots indicated small to moderate relationships between head motion estimates and percent signal change in both signal and noise regions. Blind‐source denoising strategies eliminated signal as well as noise relative to MP24 regression; however, the undesired effects on signal depended both on algorithm (FIX > AROMA) and design (bdfMRI > erfMRI). Moreover, in contrast to previous results, there were minimal differences between MP12/24 and MP0 pipelines in both erfMRI and bdfMRI designs. MP12/24 pipelines were detrimental for a task with both longer block length (30 ± 5 s) and higher correlations between head MPs and design matrix. In summary, current results suggest that there does not appear to be a single denoising approach that is appropriate for all fMRI designs. However, even nonaggressive blind‐source denoising approaches appear to remove signal as well as noise from task‐related data at individual subject and group levels.