4.4 Article

Application of mean-shift clustering to Blood oxygen level dependent functional MRI activation detection

期刊

BMC MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-14-6

关键词

Mean-shift; fMRI; BOLD; Clustering

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21 MH 082187-01, R01 DC004290-11]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371640]
  3. International Science and Technology Cooperation Plan of Suzhou, China [SH201210]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis is commonly done with cross-correlation analysis (CCA) and the General Linear Model (GLM). Both CCA and GLM techniques, however, typically perform calculations on a per-voxel basis and do not consider relationships neighboring voxels may have. Clustered voxel analyses have then been developed to improve fMRI signal detections by taking advantages of relationships of neighboring voxels. Mean-shift clustering (MSC) is another technique which takes into account properties of neighboring voxels and can be considered for enhancing fMRI activation detection. Methods: This study examines the adoption of MSC to fMRI analysis. MSC was applied to a Statistical Parameter Image generated with the CCA technique on both simulated and real fMRI data. The MSC technique was then compared with CCA and CCA plus cluster analysis. A range of kernel sizes were used to examine how the technique behaves. Results: Receiver Operating Characteristic curves shows an improvement over CCA and Cluster analysis. False positive rates are lower with the proposed technique. MSC allows the use of a low intensity threshold and also does not require the use of a cluster size threshold, which improves detection of weak activations and highly focused activations. Conclusion: The proposed technique shows improved activation detection for both simulated and real Blood Oxygen Level Dependent fMRI data. More detailed studies are required to further develop the proposed technique.

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

4.4
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