1 / 24

Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions

MICCAI 2009 fMRI data analysis workshop. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions. B. Scherrer, O. Commowick , S. K. Warfield. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions. INTRODUCTION A PARADIGM-CENTERED APPROACH EVALUATION SIMULATED ARTIFACTED ACQUISITIONS

brad
Télécharger la présentation

Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MICCAI 2009 fMRI data analysis workshop Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions B. Scherrer, O. Commowick, S. K. Warfield

  2. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions INTRODUCTION A PARADIGM-CENTERED APPROACH EVALUATION SIMULATED ARTIFACTED ACQUISITIONS REAL PEDIATRIC IMAGING CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

  3. Introduction Initial context: brain surgery planning (epilepsy, lesion, …) Preoperative fMRI to localize precisely some cognitive functions If no activation is detected If a unusual pattern is detectedIf a lower signal is detected • Is it due to the lesion? • Is it due to artifacts (motion) ? • Did the patient failed to do the task?(low patient cooperation quality) The quality assessment of fMRI acquisitions is crucial

  4. fMRI qualityassessment Inter-experiment quality assessment • Quality Assurance (QA) methods measure the scanner performance stability between centers • Test-retest methods : Quantification of activations certainty over several replicates of the same experimental paradigm [Genovese 1997, Maitra 2009] Intra-experiment quality assessment • Is there major artifacts (motion, …) ? • Did the patient performed the task well (patient cooperation quality) ? Most approaches to date focus on signal characteristics only • Motion estimation based on image variance and/or registration • Signal modeling improvement (auto-correlation, spatial dependencies, …) • …… • Do not consider the experimental paradigm • Could hardly provide information about the patient cooperation quality

  5. Introduction In this work We explore a new way to assess the fMRI data quality • A paradigm-centered approach

  6. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions INTRODUCTION A PARADIGM-CENTERED APPROACH EVALUATION SIMULATED ARTIFACTED ACQUISITIONS REAL PEDIATRIC IMAGING CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

  7. A paradigm-centered approach • We currently consider block-design paradigms • Repetition of two (or more) conditions in an alternating pattern NB blocks … One block … … … … We propose to focus on the relative information contained in each block, not on signal characteristics. C2 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 Does each block lead to similar activations? • Could, at least in part, reflect the patient cooperation quality

  8. Information contained in each blocks ? Block analysis Experimental paradigm … What information is contained in that block? For each block Construct ion of a virtual acquisition, composed of Nrepeatrepetitions of xb INCREASES THE SIGNAL … … … … … … … + DECREASES CORRELATIONS Addition of a Gaussian noise Binary activation map for each block • Computation of a thresholdedactivation map (SPM5: realignment, smoothing, GLM)

  9. Information contained in each blocks ? Result of the block analysis Experimental paradigm … B1 B2 BNB NB binary activations maps … … … • How to measure the quality/homogeneity of blocks? • B1, …, BNB considered as the artifacted observation of a (unknown) underlying true activation map T • If we knew T, we could estimate performance parameters associated with each block (specificity, sensitivity) T • Missing-data problemEstimate both T andthe performance parameters Similar idea as in STAPLE (Simultaneous Truth And Performance Level Estimation)

  10. STAPLE A missing data problem B1 Observed data: the NB binary activation mapsD [NxNB] : observed binary decision matrix (N=number of voxels) Dib=1 if the voxel i is activated in Bb. Missing data:T [N] : the “true” underlying binary activation map Parameters: p,q : performances for each of the Nb activations maps p=(p1, …, pNB): sensitivity q=(q1, …, qNB): specificity B2 BNB ? AIM: estimation of the performance parameters ML estimation: maximize the log-likelihoodGenerally not tractable • EM (Expectation-Maximization) algorithm: iterative algorithm. • Idea: maximize at each iteration local approximations of the likelihood Maximize at each iteration (k) the expectation of the complete log-likelihood:

  11. STAPLE - EM algorithm EM algorithm E-Step and M-Step at each iteration (k) E-Step: compute involve the computation of M-Step: update the parameter estimates by maximizing Q over (p,q)leads to:

  12. Synthesis … I. BLOCK ANALYSISComputation of a binary activation map per block BNB B1 B2 II. PERFORMANCE ANALYSISSTAPLE - EM algorithm (Simultaneous Truth And Performance Level Estimation) … … … EM III. OUTPUT Performance parameter Performance parameter Performance parameters Estimated true activation map

  13. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions INTRODUCTION A PARADIGM-CENTERED APPROACH EVALUATION SIMULATED ARTIFACTED ACQUISITIONS REAL PEDIATRIC IMAGING CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

  14. Evaluation In practice for the evaluation:Low proportion of active voxels compared to the total number of voxels • We prefer to show results in terms of • Positive predictive value (PPVb)proportion of active voxels in Bb which are also active in T • Negative predictive value (NPVb)proportion of non-active voxels in Bb which are also non-active in T • Evaluation with a finger tapping experiments • Experimental block-design paradigm:One minute per block : 30s of left finger tapping / 30s of right finger tapping • Siemens 3T scanner, 12 channel head coil(EPI, TR=3s, TE=30ms, matrix size=64x64, slice thickness = 3.75 mm, pixel size = 3.25 mm)

  15. Evaluation – simulated artifacts Hand change delay GLM with the 4 blocks GLM without block 3

  16. Evaluation – simulated artifacts Double task experiment GLM with the 3 blocks In this case removing the block 2 decreases the final result GLM without block 2

  17. Evaluation – simulated artifacts Motion experiment GLM with the 4 blocks GLM without block 3 Three “normal” blocks PPV and NPV are approximately homogeneous

  18. Evaluation – Real pediatric imaging Real pediatric imaging I (acquired in the Children’s Hospital, Boston)3-blocks finger-tapping clinical acquisitions GLM with the 3 blocks GLM without block 1

  19. Evaluation – Real pediatric imaging Real pediatric imaging II (acquired in the Children’s Hospital, Boston) GLM with the 3 blocks GLM without block 1

  20. Exploring the temporal quality of fMRI acquisitions INTRODUCTION A PARADIGM-CENTERED APPROACH EVALUATION SIMULATED ARTIFACTED ACQUISITIONS REAL PEDIATRIC IMAGING CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION

  21. Discussion • Our approach is paradigm-centeredFocus on the relative homogeneity of blocks instead of signal characteristics Can take into account the patient cooperation quality Remark: detected poor blocks: poor relative to the complete experiment the task has to be correctly performed during some blocks • First results shows interesting detection capabilitiesSimulated artifacts, real pediatric imagingEven with only a few blocks (clinically more realistic) • Statistically problematic for only a few blocks?The estimated “true” activation map may not have a real biological meaningBut the aim here: evaluate the homogeneity of the blocks • The reason for blocks inhomogeneity: cannot be determinedCould be the patient cooperation • Could be signal artifacts (motion, …)

  22. Discussion Paradigm-centered quality assessment appears as promising Clear room for improvement • Repeating the block and adding noise : ad-hocery?Introduce discontinuities & parameters (Nrepeat, Noise intensity)In practice better results than playing with the SPM threshold A better analysis of each block should be considered • A path to explore: to work with probability mapsBinary maps : (1) prevents propagating uncertainties (2) threshold to define  Compute and compare posterior probability maps SOFT-Staple More developments in paradigm-centered approaches should be greatly valuable for fMRI quality assessment • Extensions to event-related designs: To analyze the relative homogeneity of each event responseThe inter-trial time should be sufficiently long (HR  returns to offset level) • Second statistical level analysis To Analyze the relative homogeneity of different subjects activation patterns How normal an activation pattern is compared to the group

  23. THANK YOU E-mail: benoit.scherrer@childrens.harvard.edu Web: http://www.crl.med.harvard.eduhttp://www.benoitscherrer.com

  24. Functional MRI (fMRI) Number of publications with ‘fMRI’ in the title or in the abstract (source: PUBMED). Functional MRI : growing popularity over the past 15 years • Include: • Methodology papers • Neuroscience/clinical studies • … fMRI data analysis a challenging task, sensitive to the acquisition quality • Low resolution • Low signal to noise ratio The quality assessment of fMRI acquisitions is crucial

More Related