Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A quantitative comparison of motion detection algorithms in fMRI.

B A Ardekani1, A H Bachman, J A Helpern

  • 1Center for Advanced Brain Imaging, Nathan Kline Institute, 140 Old Orangeburg Road, Orangeburg, NY 10962, USA. ardekani@nki.rfmh.org

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
|October 12, 2001
PubMed
Summary

Accurate fMRI motion detection is crucial. SPM99 excelled in accuracy, while AFNI98 offered a balanced speed and accuracy, proving robust against noise for reliable fMRI analysis.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Sexual Dimorphism and Hemispheric Asymmetry of Hippocampal Volumetric Integrity in Normal Aging and Alzheimer Disease.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2019
Same author

Corpus callosum shape and morphology in youth across the psychosis Spectrum.

Schizophrenia research·2018
Same author

Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging of the Corticospinal Tract in Multiple Sclerosis: Association with Neurologic Disability.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2017
Same author

Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging and Motor Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2017
Same author

Mapping the Orientation of White Matter Fiber Bundles: A Comparative Study of Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging, and Diffusion Spectrum Imaging.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2016
Same author

Corpus callosum area and brain volume in autism spectrum disorder: quantitative analysis of structural MRI from the ABIDE database.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2015

Area of Science:

  • Neuroimaging
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Data Analysis

Background:

  • Subject motion is a significant challenge in functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) time-series analysis.
  • Accurate motion detection and correction are vital for reliable fMRI data interpretation.
  • Several open-source algorithms exist for addressing motion artifacts in fMRI data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of four widely used fMRI motion detection algorithms: AIR 3.08, SPM99, AFNI98, and the Thévenaz, Ruttimann, and Unser (TRU) pyramid method.
  • To evaluate algorithm efficacy in correcting simulated motions across varying noise levels.
  • To identify the most accurate, fastest, and robust motion correction tool for fMRI analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Simulated fMRI data with known motion parameters were generated.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Four distinct motion correction algorithms (AIR 3.08, SPM99, AFNI98, TRU) were applied to the simulated data.
  • Algorithm performance was assessed based on accuracy in motion parameter estimation and robustness to noise.

    • Main Results:

    • SPM99 demonstrated the highest accuracy in motion detection among the evaluated algorithms.
    • AFNI98 offered comparable accuracy to SPM99 but was significantly faster and demonstrated superior robustness in noisy conditions.
    • TRU's performance was comparable to SPM99 and AFNI98 for minor misalignments but degraded substantially with larger ones.
    • AIR was found to be the least accurate algorithm in this comparison.

    Conclusions:

    • AFNI98 presents a favorable balance of speed and accuracy, making it a practical choice for fMRI motion correction.
    • SPM99 is the most accurate but may be slower, while AFNI98 offers robustness and speed, especially in low signal-to-noise ratio environments.
    • The choice of algorithm depends on specific research needs, balancing accuracy, speed, and tolerance to noise in fMRI data processing.