4.5 Article

Children's head motion during fMRI tasks is heritable and stable over time

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue -, Pages 58-68

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.01.011

Keywords

Head motion; fMRI; Twin study; Repeated measures; Individual differences

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [P50 HD052117, R21HD081437, R01HD083613, R24HD042849]
  2. University of Texas Imaging Research Center [20141031a]
  3. National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Head motion during fMRI scans negatively impacts data quality, and as post-acquisition techniques for addressing motion become increasingly stringent, data retention decreases. Studies conducted with adultparticipants suggest that movement acts as a relatively stable, heritable phenotype that serves as a marker for other genetically influenced phenotypes. Whether these patterns extend downward to childhood has critical implications for the interpretation and generalizability of fMRI data acquired from children. We examined factors affecting scanner motion in two samples: a population-based twin sample of 73 participants (ages 7-12 years) and a case-control sample of 32 non-struggling and 78 struggling readers (ages 8-11 years), 30 of whom were scanned multiple times. Age, but not ADHD symptoms, was significantly related to scanner movement. Movement also varied as a function of task type, run length, and session length. Twin pair concordance for head motion was high for monozygotic twins and moderate for dizygotic twins. Cross-session test-retest reliability was high. Together, these findings suggest that children's head motion is a genetically influenced trait that has the potential to systematically affect individual differences in BOLD changes within and across groups. We discuss recommendations for future work and best practices for pediatric neuroimaging. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available