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

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Pillai JJ

   . The evolution of clinical functional imaging during the past 2 decades and its current impact on neurosurgical planning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:219–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1845 pmid:20150316

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Krings T,
   3. Reinges MH,
   4. Erberich S, et al

   . Functional MRI for presurgical planning: problems, artefacts, and solution strategies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;70:749–60 doi:10.1136/jnnp.70.6.749 pmid:11385009

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Ogawa S,
   3. Lee TM,
   4. Kay AR, et al

   . Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1990;87:9868–72 doi:10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868 pmid:2124706

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Ogawa S,
   3. Menon RS,
   4. Tank DW, et al

   . Functional brain mapping by blood oxygenation level-dependent contrast magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison of signal characteristics with a biophysical model. Biophys J 1993;64:803–12 doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(93)81441-3 pmid:8386018

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Xu Y,
   3. Tong Y,
   4. Liu S, et al

   . Denoising the speaking brain: toward a robust technique for correcting artifact-contaminated fMRI data under severe motion. Neuroimage 2014;103:33–47 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.013 pmid:25225001

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Johnstone T,
   3. Ores Walsh KS,
   4. Greischar LL, et al

   . Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple-subject fMRI analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 2006;27:779–88 doi:10.1002/hbm.20219 pmid:16456818

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Biswal B,
   3. DeYoe EA,
   4. Hyde JS

   . Reduction of physiological fluctuations in fMRI using digital filters. Magn Reson Med 1996;35:107–13 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910350114 pmid:8771028

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Field AS,
   3. Yen YF,
   4. Burdette JH, et al

   . False cerebral activation on BOLD functional MR images: study of low-amplitude motion weakly correlated to stimulus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1388–96 pmid:11003269

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Krüger G,
   3. Glover GH

   . Physiological noise in oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:631–37 doi:10.1002/mrm.1240.abs pmid:11590638

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Wilke M

    . Isolated assessment of translation or rotation severely underestimates the effects of subject motion in fMRI data. PLoS One 2014;9:e106498 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106498 pmid:25333359

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Friston KJ,
    3. Williams S,
    4. Howard R, et al

    . Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series. Magn Reson Med 1996;35:346–55 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910350312 pmid:8699946

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Power JD,
    3. Barnes KA,
    4. Snyder AZ, et al

    . Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage 2012;59:2142–54 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 pmid:22019881

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Wu DH,
    3. Lewin JS,
    4. Duerk JL

    . Inadequacy of motion correction algorithms in functional MRI: role of susceptibility-induced artifacts. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:365–70 doi:10.1002/jmri.1880070219 pmid:9090592

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Glover GH,
    3. Li TQ,
    4. Ress D

    . Image-based method for retrospective correction of physiological motion effects in fMRI: RETROICOR. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:162–67 pmid:10893535

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Goto M,
    3. Abe O,
    4. Miyati T, et al

    . Head motion and correction methods in resting-state functional MRI. Magn Reson Med Sci 2016;15:178–86 doi:10.2463/mrms.rev.2015-0060 pmid:26701695

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Todd N,
    3. Josephs O,
    4. Callaghan MF, et al

    . Prospective motion correction of 3D echo-planar imaging data for functional MRI using optical tracking. Neuroimage 2015;113:1–12 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.013 pmid:25783205

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Muraskin J,
    3. Ooi MB,
    4. Goldman RI, et al

    . Prospective active marker motion correction improves statistical power in BOLD fMRI. Neuroimage 2013;68:154–61 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.052 pmid:23220430

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Schulz J,
    3. Siegert T,
    4. Bazin PL, et al

    . Prospective slice-by-slice motion correction reduces false positive activations in fMRI with task-correlated motion. Neuroimage 2014;84:124–32 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.006 pmid:23954484

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. McKeown MJ,
    3. Makeig S,
    4. Brown GG, et al

    . Analysis of fMRI data by blind separation into independent spatial components. Hum Brain Mapp 1998;6:160–88 pmid:9673671

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Biswal BB,
    3. Ulmer JL

    . Blind source separation of multiple signal sources of fMRI data sets using independent component analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23:265–71 doi:10.1097/00004728-199903000-00016 pmid:10096335

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Quigley MA,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. Carew J, et al

    . Comparison of independent component analysis and conventional hypothesis-driven analysis for clinical functional MR image processing. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:49–58 pmid:11827875

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Thomas CG,
    3. Harshman RA,
    4. Menon RS

    . Noise reduction in BOLD-based fMRI using component analysis. Neuroimage 2002;17:1521–37 doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1200 pmid:12414291

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Smith SM,
    3. Jenkinson M,
    4. Woolrich MW, et al

    . Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage 2004;23(suppl 1):S208–19 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 pmid:15501092

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Bannister P,
    4. Brady M, et al

    . Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 2002;17:825–41 doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 pmid:12377157

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Power JD,
    3. Mitra A,
    4. Laumann TO, et al

    . Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. Neuroimage 2014;84:320–41 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.048 pmid:23994314

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Kelly RE Jr.,
    3. Alexopoulos GS,
    4. Wang Z, et al

    . Visual inspection of independent components: defining a procedure for artifact removal from fMRI data. J Neurosci Methods 2010;189:233–45 doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.03.028 pmid:20381530

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. McKeown MJ,
    3. Hansen LK,
    4. Sejnowsk TJ

    . Independent component analysis of functional MRI: what is signal and what is noise? Curr Opin Neurobiol 2003;13:620–29 doi:10.1016/j.conb.2003.09.012 pmid:14630228

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Kochiyama T,
    3. Morita T,
    4. Okada T, et al

    . Removing the effects of task-related motion using independent-component analysis. Neuroimage 2005;25:802–14 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.027 pmid:15808981

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Power JD,
    3. Fair DA,
    4. Schlaggar BL, et al

    . The development of human functional brain networks. Neuron 2010;67:735–48 doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.017 pmid:20826306

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    2. Desmond JE,
    3. Atlas SW

    . Task-correlated head movement in fMR imaging: false activations can contaminate results despite motion correction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1370–71 pmid:11003264

    PubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Krüger G,
    3. Kastrup A,
    4. Glover GH

    . Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:595–604 doi:10.1002/mrm.1081 pmid:11283987

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Lund TE,
    3. Madsen KH,
    4. Sidaros K, et al

    . Non-white noise in fMRI: does modelling have an impact? Neuroimage 2006;29:54–66 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.005 pmid:16099175

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    2. White N,
    3. Roddey C,
    4. Shankaranarayanan A, et al

    . PROMO: real-time prospective motion correction in MRI using image-based tracking. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:91–105 doi:10.1002/mrm.22176 pmid:20027635

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Ward HA,
    3. Riederer SJ,
    4. Grimm RC, et al

    . Prospective multiaxial motion correction for fMRI. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:459–69 pmid:10725890

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Rotenberg D,
    3. Chiew M,
    4. Ranieri S, et al

    . Real-time correction by optical tracking with integrated geometric distortion correction for reducing motion artifacts in functional MRI. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:734–48 doi:10.1002/mrm.24309 pmid:22585554

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Dold C,
    3. Zaitsev M,
    4. Speck O, et al

    . Advantages and limitations of prospective head motion compensation for MRI using an optical motion tracking device. Acad Radiol 2006;13:1093–103 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2006.05.010 pmid:16935721

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Stone JV

    . Independent component analysis: an introduction. Trends Cogn Sci 2002;6:59–64 doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01813-1 pmid:15866182

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    2. Bhaganagarapu K,
    3. Jackson GD,
    4. Abbott DF

    . An automated method for identifying artifact in independent component analysis of resting-state FMRI. Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:343 doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00343 pmid:23847511

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Sochat V,
    3. Supekar K,
    4. Bustillo J, et al

    . A robust classifier to distinguish noise from fMRI independent components. PLoS One 2014;9:e95493 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095493 pmid:24748378

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Salimi-Khorshidi G,
    3. Douaud G,
    4. Beckmann CF, et al

    . Automatic denoising of functional MRI data: combining independent component analysis and hierarchical fusion of classifiers. Neuroimage 2014;90:449–68 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.046 pmid:24389422

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    2. Tohka J,
    3. Foerde K,
    4. Aron AR, et al

    . Automatic independent component labeling for artifact removal in fMRI. Neuroimage 2008;39:1227–45 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.10.013 pmid:18042495

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    2. De Martino F,
    3. Gentile F,
    4. Esposito F, et al

    . Classification of fMRI independent components using IC-fingerprints and support vector machine classifiers. Neuroimage 2007;34:177–94 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.041 pmid:17070708

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    2. Pruim RH,
    3. Mennes M,
    4. van Rooij D, et al

    . ICA-AROMA: A robust ICA-based strategy for removing motion artifacts from fMRI data. Neuroimage 2015;112:267–77 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.064 pmid:25770991

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Moritz CH,
    3. Haughton VM,
    4. Cordes D, et al

    . Whole-brain functional MR imaging activation from a finger-tapping task examined with independent component analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1629–35 pmid:11039341

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    2. Caulo M,
    3. Esposito R,
    4. Mantini D, et al

    . Comparison of hypothesis- and a novel hybrid data/hypothesis-driven method of functional MR imaging analysis in patients with brain gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1056–64 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2428 pmid:21393411

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
46. 46.↵
    2. McKeown MJ

    . Detection of consistently task-related activations in fMRI data with hybrid independent component analysis. Neuroimage 2000;11:24–35 doi:10.1006/nimg.1999.0518 pmid:10686114

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science