Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEDITORIAL

Task-correlated Head Movement in fMR Imaging: False Activations Can Contaminate Results Despite Motion Correction

John E. Desmond and Scott W. Atlas
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2000, 21 (8) 1370-1371;
John E. Desmond
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott W. Atlas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

In recent years, functional magnetic resonance (fMR) imaging has greatly expanded our capacity to investigate the neuronal substrates of human cognitive processes. This methodology, which relies on blood oxygenation level–dependent (BOLD) contrast, has proven to be a valuable tool for addressing not only questions regarding the basic nature of human cognitive function, but also questions concerning how aging and disease can alter this function.

As in all scientific endeavors, neuroimaging is susceptible to errors. A great deal of attention has been devoted to avoiding statistically false-positive results. That is, given that independent statistical tests are conducted on thousands of voxels, and that each test has a small probability of falsely concluding that there is a significant activation, the sheer number of tests results in a large number of brain regions that spuriously appear to be activated.

False-positive results can also occur when head motion is correlated with the task design, and it is this type of artifact that Field and colleagues address in their article in this issue of the AJNR (page 1388). As an example, if a study investigates brain regions underlying movement of the fingers, and employs an experimental protocol in which periods of finger movement are alternated with periods of rest, it is possible that the subject's finger movements will translate subtle motion to the head during the finger movement blocks. Such motion manifests as translation along or rotation about the x, y, or z axis, and can produce regional differences in signal magnitude between two contrasting conditions (movement vs rest in this example) that reach statistical significance. In contrast to statistically false-positive results (ie, type I errors), it is difficult to assess the probability of motion-induced false-positive results. Most researchers strive to minimize this probability either “on-line” by reducing the opportunity for head motion in the first place by using bite-bars or other head restraint devices, “off-line” by using motion correction postprocessing algorithms to realign all the brain volumes to a reference volume, or by a combination of these methods.

Although previous investigators (1) have demonstrated that relatively large movements (approximately 3-mm translation) can result in spurious activations that are reduced by motion correction algorithms, the investigation by Field et al is unique in three ways. First, a phantom approximating the size and shape of the human brain was constructed, along with an apparatus for introducing controlled in-plane translations and rotations. Thus, simulations of fMR imaging experiments with alternating blocks of two different trial types could be performed and, in contrast to studies using human volunteers, task-correlated motion could be guaranteed to be present while task-correlated neuronal activation was guaranteed to be absent. Second, the effects of subtle movements (< 1 mm) with varying degrees of task-correlated motion were investigated to simulate realistic experimental conditions. Finally, false-positive results due to motion were assessed after employing sophisticated postprocessing algorithms, including motion correction, removal of low-frequency components, and corrections for multiple comparisons using spatial extent. These analytical methods are commonly employed in fMR imaging investigations.

Field et al observed that, despite the subtlety of movement and the inclusion of accepted postprocessing procedures, false activation appeared when movement correlated with the task at r > 0.52, and appeared on every experiment with r > 0.67. The authors argue that “the degree of correlation between stimulus and motion may be more important than the magnitude of motion in creating these artifacts.” Although the investigation of Field et al has methodological limitations (eg, the phantom has a different structural and chemical composition than the human brain, which could result in relatively greater sensitivity to motion-related artifacts), their results should nevertheless raise concerns within the neuroimaging community about the degree to which motion contributes to fMR imaging activation maps.

Although Field et al have increased awareness that the potential for motion-related false-positive results may be present even when motion has been “prevented” or “corrected,” their results raise a number of questions:

  • How should investigators modify their procedures to reduce the probability of motion-related false-positive results? At a minimum, it seems reasonable to suggest that investigators monitor the magnitude of correlation between the task and motion for each subject. The most conservative approach would be to discard subjects with unacceptably high correlations, but other corrective measures may be possible and deserve further attention.

  • What is the effect of motion on false-negative results? That is, how often does subtle motion eliminate or reduce genuine neuronally derived activation?

  • Is through-plane movement more or less likely to produce artifacts than in-plane movement? Field et al investigated only in-plane movement.

  • Are event-related fMR imaging investigations less susceptible to motion-related artifacts than block designs? Field et al simulated a block design with six alternating “on” and “off” epochs of 30 seconds each.

Further investigation of these matters will likely improve the quality of functional neuroimaging data, and will increase confidence that results reflect genuine activation rather than motion.

References

  1. ↵
    Hajnal JV, Myers R, Oatridge A, Schwieso JE, Young IR, Bydder GM. Artifacts due to stimulus correlated motion in functional imaging of the brain. Magn Reson Med 1994;31:283-291
    PubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 21, Issue 8
1 Sep 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Task-correlated Head Movement in fMR Imaging: False Activations Can Contaminate Results Despite Motion Correction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Task-correlated Head Movement in fMR Imaging: False Activations Can Contaminate Results Despite Motion Correction
John E. Desmond, Scott W. Atlas
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2000, 21 (8) 1370-1371;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Task-correlated Head Movement in fMR Imaging: False Activations Can Contaminate Results Despite Motion Correction
John E. Desmond, Scott W. Atlas
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2000, 21 (8) 1370-1371;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reduction of Motion Artifacts and Noise Using Independent Component Analysis in Task-Based Functional MRI for Preoperative Planning in Patients with Brain Tumor
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • The Z-Shift: A Need for Quality Management System Level Testing and Standardization in Neuroimaging Pipelines
  • Digital Didactics: Introducing the New ASNR Neuroradiology Fellowship Curriculum
  • Insights into the AJNR Review Process
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire