4.7 Article

PHYCAA: Data-driven measurement and removal of physiological noise in BOLD fMRI

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 1299-1314

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.021

Keywords

BOLD fMRI; Physiological noise; Image processing; Multivariate; Data-driven

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of physiological noise may significantly limit the reproducibility and accuracy of BOLD fMRI. However, physiological noise evidences a complex, undersampled temporal structure and is often non-orthogonal relative to the neuronally-linked BOLD response, which presents a significant challenge for identifying and removing such artifact. This paper presents a multivariate, data-driven method for the characterization and removal of physiological noise in fMRI data, termed PHYCAA (PHYsiological correction using Canonical Autocorrelation Analysis). The method identifies high frequency, autocorrelated physiological noise sources with reproducible spatial structure, using an adaptation of Canonical Correlation Analysis performed in a split-half resampling framework. The technique is able to identify physiological effects with vascular-linked spatial structure, and an intrinsic dimensionality that is task- and subject-dependent. We also demonstrate that increasing dimensionality of such physiological noise is correlated with increasing variability in externally-measured respiratory and cardiac processes. Using PHYCAA as a denoising technique significantly improves simulated signal detection with physiological noise, and real data-driven model prediction and reproducibility, for both block and event-related task designs. This is demonstrated compared to no physiological noise correction, and to the widely used RETROICOR (Glover et al., 2000) physiological denoising algorithm, which uses externally measured cardiac and respiration signals. (C) 2011 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

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available