Journal
NEUROIMAGE
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages S187-S198Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.065
Keywords
fMRI; Hemodynamic response; Magnitude; Delay; Latency; Brain imaging; Timing; Analysis
Funding
- NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH076136-01A1, R01MH076136, R01 MH076136] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Most brain research to date have 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. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available