4.6 Article

What Is the Test-Retest Reliability of Common Task-Functional MRI Measures? New Empirical Evidence and a Meta-Analysis

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 31, Issue 7, Pages 792-806

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0956797620916786

Keywords

neuroimaging; individual differences; statistical analysis; cognitive neuroscience

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [R01AG049789, R01AG032282]
  2. UK Medical Research Council [P005918]
  3. New Zealand Health Research Council
  4. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)
  5. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1644868]
  6. NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
  7. McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University
  8. MRC [MR/P005918/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identifying brain biomarkers of disease risk is a growing priority in neuroscience. The ability to identify meaningful biomarkers is limited by measurement reliability; unreliable measures are unsuitable for predicting clinical outcomes. Measuring brain activity using task functional MRI (fMRI) is a major focus of biomarker development; however, the reliability of task fMRI has not been systematically evaluated. We present converging evidence demonstrating poor reliability of task-fMRI measures. First, a meta-analysis of 90 experiments (N = 1,008) revealed poor overall reliability-mean intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = .397. Second, the test-retest reliabilities of activity in a priori regions of interest across 11 common fMRI tasks collected by the Human Connectome Project (N = 45) and the Dunedin Study (N = 20) were poor (ICCs = .067-.485). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that common task-fMRI measures are not currently suitable for brain biomarker discovery or for individual-differences research. We review how this state of affairs came to be and highlight avenues for improving task-fMRI reliability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available