4.7 Article

Functional connectivity as revealed by independent component analysis of resting-state fNIRS measurements

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 1150-1161

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.080

关键词

Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS); Optical imaging; Independent component analysis (ICA); Resting state; Functional connectivity; Blind source separation

资金

  1. National Key Basic Research and Development Program [2003CB716101]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [30500130]
  3. Beijing Normal University [08048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a promising non-invasive imaging technique, functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has recently earned increasing attention in resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) studies. Preliminary fNIRS-based RSFC studies adopted a seed correlation approach and yielded interesting results. However, the seed correlation approach has several inherent problems, such as neglecting of interactions among multiple regions and a dependence on seed region selection. Moreover, ineffectively reduced noise and artifacts in fNIRS measurements also negatively affect RSFC results. In this study, independent component analysis (ICA) was introduced to meet these challenges in RSFC detection based on resting-state fNIRS measurements. The results of ICA on data from the sensorimotor and the visual systems both showed functional system-specific RSFC maps. Results from comparison between ICA and the conventional seed correlation approach demonstrated, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the superior performance of ICA with higher sensitivity and specificity, especially in the case of higher noise level. The capability of ICA to separate noise and artifacts from resting-state fNIRS data was also demonstrated, and the extracted noise and artifacts were illustrated. Finally, some practical issues on performing ICA on resting-state fNIRS data were discussed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据