5/31/2013

An example data

- by Dr. Yu-Feng Zang

• Resting-state: eye open vs. eye close

Preparing Data for analysis
• Preprocessing

Xin Di, PhD & Suril Gohel New Jersey Institute of Technology

 

Hypothesis Data analysis
• Local properties • Connectivity

Testing Hypotheses and Inferring Results • Group inference

Eye open/Eye closed data from INDI 24 Subjects Eye open, 6min, 240 images Eye close, 6min, 240 images TR 2 second, Voxel size: 3.1×3.1×3.5 mm Anatomical SPGR image (MPRAGE Image)

(http://fcon_1000.projects.nitrc.org/indi/retro/BeijingEOEC.html)
    

 Slice timing  Motion correction  Spatial processing
• Spatial normalization • Spatial smoothing

Generally is not needed

Similar to task fMRI

 Temporal processing
• Noise removal • Filtering • Global Intensity normalization/Global Regression Specific to resting-state fMRI

 Noise removal
• Physiological noises • Head motion

• Physiological noises
o Cardiac o Respiratory

 Noise removal
• Physiological noises • Head motion

• WM/CSF Signal o High probability threshold p > 0.99 not p > 0.5 o Use eroded WM/CSF masks o Use unsmoothed fMRI data o Mean time course or principle components (Chai et al., 2012)

 Filtering
• Usually 0.01 – 0.08 Hz

• Two ways to model
o Recorded during scanning o After Scanning from the BOLD fMRI data

 Filtering
• Usually 0.01 – 0.08 Hz

 Global Intensity normalization/Global regression

 Global Intensity normalization/Global regression

1

5/31/2013

 Noise removal
• Physiological noises • Head motion

• Head motion
o Six rigid-body motion parameters (translation and rotation) o First order derivatives o Autoregressive model (current and previous time points) (Friston et al., 1995, Yan et al., 2013)

 Noise removal
• Physiological noises • Head motion


o o

Global Intensity normalization /Global Regression
Will introduce negative correlations Enhance neural (LFP)-hemodynamic

 Filtering
• Usually 0.01 – 0.08 Hz

 Filtering
• Usually 0.01 – 0.08 Hz

(Murphy et al., 2009; Saad et al., 2012) (BOLD) correlations of negative connectivity (Keller et al., 2013) o o Reduce Inter-subject variance (Yan et Use with precaution about what al. 2013) negative correlation in the data represents

 Global Intensity normalization/Global regression

 Global Intensity normalization/Global regression

1055

6

6

4 1050 2

4

 Experiment
• Eye open vs. Eye close

2 1045 0 0 1040 -2 -2 -4 1035 -6 -4

 Goal
0 50 100 150 200 250

1030

0

50

100

150

200

250

-8 0

50

100

150

200

250

-6

Raw time course

Regress out covariates

Band-pass filtering

 Functional specification
• Local properties

800 600

300

0.2

200

0.1

400
100

0

200 -0.1 0 -200
-100 0

 Functional integration
• Connectivity
0 50 100 150 200 250

-0.2

-400
-200

-0.3

-600 -800
-300

-0.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

-0.5

First 5 PCs of WM

First 5 PCs of CSF

Motion parameters

 Time-domain Properties
• Standard deviation (Biswal et al., 2007)

 ALFF (Zang et al., 2007)
Band-Pass Filtering Fourier transform Square root Average across 0.01 0.08 Hz - ALFF • Divided by global mean – mALFF • Divided by whole spectrum - fALFF (Zou et al., 2008) • • • •

 Frequency-domain Properties
• Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuation (ALFF, Zang et al., 2007) • Fractional Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuation (fALFF, Zou et al., 2008)

 Homogenous Properties
• Regional Homogeneity (ReHo, Zang et al., 2004)

 Network centralities
• Eigen vector centrality (ECM, Lohmann et al., 2010; Wink et al., 2012)

Zang et al., 2007

2

5/31/2013

 ReHo (Zang et al., 2004)
• Local similarity • Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (KCC)

 ECM (Lohmann et al., 2010)
• The importance of a given voxel in the WHOLE BRAIN network.
• Number of nodes connected Wink et al., 2012 • How important the connected nodes
7 19 27

W=

Σ ( R i ) 2 − n ( ̄R )2 1 2 3 K ( n − n) 12

• Fast ECM (Wink et al., 2012)

Paired t-test Eye open mALFF Eye close mReHo Eye open Eye close
eye open > eye close
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

mALFF
open > close

mfALFF
open - close
contrast(s)

mReHo
open - close
contrast(s)

ECM
contrast(s)

2

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

SPM mip [-33, -58, -5]

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

2

2

<

<

<

<

<
5

<

5 10

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SPMresults: .\Group\mReHo_unsmoothed Height 45 threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 118 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s)

<

SPM{T23}

<

mfALFF

ECM
eye close > eye open
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

p < 0.001 k > 10
- open

SPM{T23}

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35 40

p < 0.001 k > 10
5 10 15 20 Design matrix contrast(s) 25

SPMresults:F:\INDI_Lite_FMRI\Group\mALFF Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} close Extent threshold k = 70 voxels

> open

40 SPMresults: F:\INDI_Lite_FMRI\Group\mfALFF Height 45 threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} close Extent threshold k = 10 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s)

close - open

45

1

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

SPM mip [-33, -58, -5]

SPM [39, -85, 25]

mip

1

1

<

<

<

<

<
5

<

5 10

10 15 20 25

<

SPM{T23}

SPM{T23}

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 Design matrix 25

<

30 35 40 SPMresults: .\Group\mReHo_unsmoothed

p < 0.001 k > 10

SPMresults:F:\INDI_Lite_FMRI\Group\mALFF
Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 40 voxels

40 SPMresults: F:\INDI_Lite_FMRI\Group\mfALFF
Height 45 threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 30 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

Height 45 threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 118 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

Statistics: p-values adjusted for search volume
250 set-level
p c
0.000 0.000 4035 0.000

cluster-level
pFWE-corr
0.012 0.015 0.034

peak-level
qFDR-corr
0.048 0.048 0.066

T
7.05 6.94 6.59

(Z)
5.09 5.05 4.89

puncorr
0.000 0.000 0.000

mm mm mm
30 -19 39 -31 -6 -7 19 10 40

p < 0.001, cluster level FDR p < 0.05
Statistics: p-values adjusted for search volume
set-level
p
0.000

250

cluster-level
qFDR-corr
0.000

peak-level
T
6.26 6.22 5.69 5.78 5.71 5.43 4.91 4.73 4.73

c

pFWE-corr
0.000

kE

puncorr

pFWE-corr
0.045 0.048 0.128 0.108 0.124 0.201 0.454 0.574 0.574

qFDR-corr
0.096 0.096 0.096 0.096 0.096 0.096 0.199 0.239 0.239

(Z)

puncorr

mm mm mm
27 -27 -27 36 33 42 -30 -51 -30 -31 -40 -19 -31 -22 -31 -25 -37 -13

3

1895

0.000

200

200

0.000

0.000

561

0.000

0.000

0.000

249

0.000

150

150

4.73 4.72 4.45 4.50 4.46 4.31 4.02 3.91 3.91

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

67 58 61 13 22 19 10 16 10

100

100

50

50

0

table shows 3 local maxima more than 8.0mm apart Height threshold: p = 0.001 (1.000) 0 0.1 T = 3.48,0.2 0.3 Extent threshold: k = 40 voxels, p = 0.010 (0.130) Expected voxels per cluster, <k> = 5.391 Expected number of clusters, <c> = 0.14 FWEp: 6.430, FDRp: 6.908, FWEc: 4035, FDRc: 4035

0.4

Degrees of freedom 23.0] 0.5 0.6 = [1.0,0.7

FWHM = 12.1 12.0 11.8 mm mm mm; 4.0 4.0 3.9 {voxels} Volume: 1844532 = 68316 voxels = 982.0 resels Voxel size: 3.0 3.0 3.0 mm mm mm; (resel = 63.12 voxels)

0.8

0.9

1

0

table shows 3 local maxima more than 8.0mm apart Height threshold: p = 0.001 (1.000) 0 0.1 T = 3.48,0.2 0.3 Extent threshold: k = 118 voxels, p = 0.002 (0.014) Expected voxels per cluster, <k> = 9.857 Expected number of clusters, <c> = 0.01 FWEp: 6.201, FDRp: Inf, FWEc: 249, FDRc: 249

0.4

Degrees of freedom 23.0] 0.5 0.6 = [1.0,0.7

FWHM = 15.0 13.6 15.3 mm mm mm; 5.0 4.5 5.1 {voxels} Volume: 1844532 = 68316 voxels = 537.1 resels Voxel size: 3.0 3.0 3.0 mm mm mm; (resel = 115.40 voxels)

0.8

0.9

1


• •

Functional connectivity
Correlation Mutual information
A B


• • •

ROI-based analysis
Simple Need strong hypothesis Selectivity problem


• •

Effective connectivity
Granger causality Dynamic causal model
A B

?

3

5/31/2013


• • • •

Seed-based correlation
Less strong hypothesis Exploratory Specificity Correlation maps might be affected by seed selection

?

Spatial independent component analysis (ICA)
Purely data-driven Complicated algorithm Explaining the results with caution

• • •

Statistical analysis: Design
Sn(1) CSF PCA1 Sn(1) CSF PCA2 Sn(1) CSF PCA3 Sn(1) CSF PCA4 Sn(1) CSF PCA5

Sn(1) WM PCA1

Sn(1) WM PCA2

Sn(1) WM PCA3

Sn(1) WM PCA4

Sn(1) WM PCA5

Sn(1) LV 2

Sn(1) R1

Sn(1) R2

Sn(1) R3

Sn(1) R4

Sn(1) R5

• • • •

Local differences (ALFF differences…) Structural (AAL, Brodmann’s area…) Previous study (Coordinates) Meta-analysis (Activation likelihood estimation …)

• •

Motion parameters (translation, rotation, derivatives, autoregressive model...) White matter, CSF (mean, PCA princomp) Global signal High-pass filter (1/100 Hz) Series correlation (AR(1)?)

Design matrix

Sn(1) R6

Defining ROIs

Covariates

Sn(1) constant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

images

Seed

WM

parameters CSF

Motion Constant
(gray   not uniquely specified)

parameter estimability

Design description...
Basis functions : Number of sessions : Trials per session : Interscan interval : High pass Filter : Global calculation : Grand mean scaling : Global normalisation : hrf 1 0 2.50 {s} Cutoff: 100 {s} mean voxel value session specific None

Single subject maps Left Visual

Eye open

Eye close

Paired t-test L. visual seed eye open > eye close
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

R. visual seed
open - close
contrast(s)

PCC seed
open - close
contrast(s)
contrast(s)

open - close

2

2

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

5 10

5 10

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

2

<

<

<

<

<

<

5 10

Right Visual eye close > eye open PCC Seed
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels

40

close - open

45

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_RV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} close Extent threshold k = 40 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s) Statistics: p-values adjusted for search volume
set-level
p
0.000

40

- open

45

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_PCC Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} open Extent threshold k = 76 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s) Statistics: p-values adjusted for search volume

40

- close

45 5 10 15 20 Design matrix contrast(s) 25

1

1

c
5

pFWE-corr
0.000

qFDR-corr
0.000

kE
420

puncorr
0.000

pFWE-corr
0.031 0.239 0.245 0.091 0.202 0.234 0.250 0.601 0.851 0.999 0.806 0.818

kE

puncorr
0.002

pFWE-corr
0.240 0.340 0.544 0.243 0.482 0.997

qFDR-corr
0.482 0.482 0.482 0.482 0.482 0.997

2

<

<

250

cluster-level <

<

cluster-level peak-level set-level mm mm mm qFDR-corr T250 p (Z) c puncorr pFWE-corr qFDR-corr
0.090 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.222 0.345 0.802 0.330 0.330 6.51 0.000 4.85 2 5.37 4.28 5.36 4.27 5 200 5.92 4.57 5.47 4.34 10 5.39 4.29 15 5.35 4.27 4.74 3.92 20 150 4.35 3.68 3.64 3.20 25 4.43 3.73 4.41 3.71 30

<

<

peak-level
T (Z)
4.30 4.18 3.99 4.29 4.04 3.28

puncorr
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

mm mm mm
-42 -22 -14 -39 -25 -5 -51 -37 -11 -12 38 -5 12 35 -5 9 50 -14

5 200 10

0.000

0.000

486

0.000

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 150 25 30 100 35

0.041 0.005

0.010 0.002

64 104

0.005 0.001

<
0.134 0.027 43

SPM{T23}

0.017

0.017 -18 0.023 0.000 -76 34 76 0.000 -12 -82 43 0.000 -30 -79 10 0.001 18 0.003 0.000 -79 46 131 0.000 30 -46 49 0.000 33 -73 22 0.000 -27 -55 55 0.000 -27 -55 -14 0.000 -39 -67 -5 0.001 -24 -61 -8 0.000 6 -73 -20 0.000 -9 -76 -17

0.000

5.41 5.19 4.86 5 5.40 4.95 10 3.75

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

100 35

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV

40 45

Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 79 voxels

50

Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 57 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix
Height threshold: p = 0.001 (1.000) 0 0.1 T = 3.48,0.2 0.3

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_RV

40 45
50

p < 0.001, cluster level FDR p < 0.05
5 10 15 20 Design matrix 0.8 0.9
table shows 3 local maxima more than 8.0mm apart

Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix 0.4

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV

40 45

25

0

Extent threshold: k = 40 voxels, p = 0.020 (0.160) Expected voxels per cluster, <k> = 6.903 Expected number of clusters, <c> = 0.17 FWEp: 6.245, FDRp: Inf, FWEc: 64, FDRc: 43

0.4

0 Height threshold: p = 0.001 (1.000) Degrees of freedom 23.0] 0.5 0.6 = [1.0,0.7 0.8 0.9 10.3 0 0.1 T = 3.48, 0.2

table shows 3 local maxima more than 8.0mm apart Degrees of freedom 23.0] 0.5 0.6 = [1.0,0.7 FWHM = 12.5 12.8 12.7 mm mm mm; 4.2 4.3 4.2 {voxels} Volume: 1422630 = 52690 voxels = 622.4 resels Voxel size: 3.0 3.0 3.0 mm mm mm; (resel = 75.44 voxels)

Extent threshold: k = {voxels} 76 voxels, p = 0.002 (0.017) FWHM = 12.9 13.0 13.0 mm mm mm; 4.3 4.3 4.3 Volume: 1422630 = 52690 voxels = 581.0 resels Expected voxels per cluster, <k> = 6.443 Expected number of clusters, Voxel size: 3.0 3.0 3.0 mm mm mm; (resel = 80.82 voxels)<c> = 0.02 FWEp: 6.280, FDRp: Inf, FWEc: 76, FDRc: 76

1

4

5/31/2013

Melodic in FSL GIFT in MATLAB  Issues
 

DMN

1st Visual

Run ICA together or separately? Number of components?

Right Executive

Higher Visual

Left Executive

Motor

Cole et al., 2010

Eye open Primary visual IC

Eye close eye open > eye close
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

1st Visual IC
open - close

Higher Visual IC
open - close
contrast(s) contrast(s)

DMN IC
open - close
contrast(s)

2

2

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

5 10

5 10

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

2

<

<

<

<

<

<

5 10

Higher visual IC eye close > eye open
SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

SPMresults:.\ICA_preprocessed_IC8_1stVis Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} open Extent threshold k = 50 voxels

40

- close

45

SPMresults:.\ICA_preprocessed_IC9_2ndVis Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} open Extent threshold k = 55 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s)

40

- close

45

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix contrast(s)

40

open - close

45 5 10 15 20 Design matrix contrast(s) 25

2

2

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

5 10

5 10

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

DMN IC

2

<

<

<

<

<

<

5 10

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV

40 45

Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

40 45

p < 0.001, cluster level FDR p < 0.05
5 10 15 20 Design matrix 25

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_LV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

40 45

Statistical analysis: Design

Whether the effects are reliable across subject?  Whether the effects are different between two groups?  Whether the effects are different between conditions?  More than two groups/conditions

One-sample t-test Two-sample t-test

Condition 1 Condition 2 Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5 Subject 6 Subject 7 Subject 8 Subject 9 Subject 10 Subject 11 Subject 12 Subject 13 Subject 14 Subject 15 Subject 16 Subject 17 Subject 18 Subject 19 Subject 20 Subject 21 Subject 22 Subject 23 Subject 24

Within-subject effects Inter-individual differences are less likely to affect the results
images

Design matrix

Paired t-test

(repeated measure) ANOVA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conditions

parameters Subjects
(gray   not uniquely specified)

parameter estimability

Design description...
Design : Global calculation : Grand mean scaling : Global normalisation : Parameters : Paired t-test omit <no grand Mean scaling> <no global normalisation> 2 condition, +0 covariate, +24 block, +0 nuisance 26 total, having 25 degrees of freedom leaving 23 degrees of freedom from 48 images

5

5/31/2013

Statistical analysis: Design

Groups

Groups

Groups

Design matrix

gender

Group differences Dealing with potential confounding variables Covariates Age Gender Motion Brain structure ALFF …

1

2

3

age

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

images

Groups

parameters

Effects of no interest
(gray   not uniquely specified)

Individual differences of ALFF correlated with ICs Di et al., (2013)

parameter estimability

Design description...
Design : Global calculation : Grand mean scaling : Global normalisation : Parameters : ANOVA omit <no grand Mean scaling> <no global normalisation> 3 condition, +2 covariate, +0 block, +0 nuisance 5 total, having 5 degrees of freedom leaving 70 degrees of freedom from 75 images

Regional ALFF correlated with functional connectivity Di et al., (2013)

Including ALFF maps as a voxel-wise covariate revealed significant increased connectivity in 11 RSNs. Interestingly, the number of voxels with significant increased connectivity generally decreased. Abou Elseoud et al., (2012) FSL SPM/MATLAB: REST, WFU Biological Parametric Mapping (BPM)

Convergent results in higher visual area
Higher ALFF
open > close


Lower ECM
contrast(s)

Design is simple. Analysis is flexible.
Take care of physiological noises Reporting analysis procedures in detail

Higher ReHo open - close
contrast(s)

• •

SPM mip 2 [-33, -58, -5]

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

2

<

<

<

<


5

5

10 15 20 25 30 35

10



Primary Visual IC activity open - close
10 15 20 Design matrix 25 contrast(s) contrast(s)

<

SPM{T23}

<

Be careful when using global signal regression Take care of multiple comparison problem
Not only multiple voxels, but also multiple ICs, and multiple seeds…

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5

SPMresults:F:\INDI_Lite_FMRI\Group\mALFF Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 70 voxels

40 SPMresults: .\Group\mReHo_unsmoothed 45 Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 118 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

Higher connectivity with right visual open - ROI close
< <

Use of multiple covariates to minimize confounding effects
Age, gender, head motion, brain structure, ALFF…

2

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

SPM mip [0, -1, 1]

5

2

<

<


5

10 15 20 25 30 35

10

<

SPM{T23}

<

SPM{T23}

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 Design matrix 25

SPMresults:.\Group\Seeding_RV Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 40 voxels
Statistics: p-values adjusted for search volume
250 set-level
p
0.000

40 SPMresults: .\ICA_preprocessed_IC8_1stVis 45 Height threshold T = 3.484964 {p<0.001 (unc.)} Extent threshold k = 50 voxels 5 10 15 20 25 Design matrix

cluster-level
c
5

peak-level
kE
420

pFWE-corr
0.000

qFDR-corr
0.000

puncorr
0.000

pFWE-corr
0.031 0.239 0.245 0.091 0.202 0.234 0.250 0.601 0.851 0.999 0.806 0.818

qFDR-corr
0.090 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.222 0.345 0.802 0.330 0.330

T
6.51 5.37 5.36 5.92 5.47 5.39 5.35 4.74 4.35 3.64 4.43 4.41

(Z)
4.85 4.28 4.27 4.57 4.34 4.29 4.27 3.92 3.68 3.20 3.73 3.71

puncorr
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

mm mm mm
-18 -12 -30 18 30 33 -27 -27 -39 -24 6 -9 -76 34 -82 43 -79 10 -79 46 -46 49 -73 22 -55 55 -55 -14 -67 -5 -61 -8 -73 -20 -76 -17

200

0.000

0.000

486

0.000

150

0.041 0.005

0.010 0.002

64 104

0.005 0.001

0.134

0.027

43

0.017

100

50

0

table shows 3 local maxima more than 8.0mm apart Height threshold: p = 0.001 (1.000) 0 0.1 T = 3.48,0.2 0.3 Extent threshold: k = 40 voxels, p = 0.020 (0.160) Expected voxels per cluster, <k> = 6.903 Expected number of clusters, <c> = 0.17 FWEp: 6.245, FDRp: Inf, FWEc: 64, FDRc: 43

0.4

Degrees of freedom 23.0] 0.5 0.6 = [1.0,0.7

FWHM = 12.9 13.0 13.0 mm mm mm; 4.3 4.3 4.3 {voxels} Volume: 1422630 = 52690 voxels = 581.0 resels Voxel size: 3.0 3.0 3.0 mm mm mm; (resel = 80.82 voxels)

0.8

0.9

1

6

5/31/2013

 

ALFF: Zang YF, He Y, Zhu CZ, Cao QJ, Sui MQ, Liang M, Tian LX, Jiang TZ, Wang YF, (2007). Altered baseline brain activity in children with ADHD revealed by resting-state functional MRI. Brain Dev 29(2):83-91. fALFF: Zou QH, Zhu CZ, Yang Y, Zuo XN, Long XY, Cao QJ, Wang YF, Zang YF, (2008). An improved approach to detection of amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (ALFF) for restingstate fMRI: fractional ALFF. J Neurosci Methods172(1):137-41. Reho: Zang Y, Jiang T, Lu Y, He Y, Tian L, (2004). Regional homogeneity approach to fMRI data analysis. Neuroimage22(1):394-400. ECM: Lohmann G, Margulies DS, Horstmann A, Pleger B, Lepsien J, Goldhahn D, Schloegl H, Stumvoll M, Villringer A, Turner R, (2010). Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in fMRI data of the human brain. PLoS One 5(4):e10232. ECM: Wink AM, de Munck JC, van der Werf YD, van den Heuvel OA, Barkhof F, (2012). Fast eigenvector centrality mapping of voxel-wise connectivity in functional magnetic resonance imaging: implementation, validation, and interpretation. Brain Connect 2(5):265-74. Seed-based correlation: Biswal B, Yetkin FZ, Haughton VM, Hyde JS, (1995). Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med34(4):537-41. Seed-based correlation: Cordes D, Haughton VM, Arfanakis K, Wendt GJ, Turski PA, Moritz CH, Quigley MA, Meyerand ME, (2000). Mapping functionally related regions of brain with functional connectivity MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21(9):1636-44. ICA: Beckmann CF, DeLuca M, Devlin JT, Smith SM, (2005). Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent component analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360(1457):1001-13.

7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.