0152

Accelerated rank-constrained FMRI data reconstruction informed by external temporal measures
Mark Chiew1, Nadine N Graedel1, Jostein Holmgren2, Dean Fido1, Catherine E Warnaby1, and Karla L Miller1

1FMRIB Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Institute of Psychology, University of Oslo

Synopsis

Reconstruction of highly under-sampled FMRI data using low-rank constraints can suffer from loss of fidelity at high acceleration factors, or when signals are relatively weak. We introduce a method for improving reconstruction fidelity using external constraints, i.e., informative signals that are not data-derived. We show that this improves FMRI reconstruction quality in a number of conditions, including detecting subtle latency shifts between brain regions, and improving resting state network characterization using simultaneously acquired EEG information. We further show that this approach works with noisy or approximate constraints, and the derived benefit is commensurate with the information content they provide.

Introduction

We propose a method for improving accelerated FMRI data reconstruction using external measures such as experimental design considerations or simultaneously acquired EEG. This approach extends rank-constrained FMRI1, which has enabled robust under-sampled recovery of high-variance information based on network modelling. However, rank-constrained approaches rely upon the strength of the functional components, and when under-sampling factors are high or the components are subtle, functional data recovery can be poor or incomplete2.

We incorporate external information into the rank-constrained reconstruction framework by enforcing its presence in the low-rank temporal subspace, facilitating the recovery of information that would be otherwise irretrievable at the chosen acceleration factors. We also show that the external measure(s) need not be completely accurate, so long as there is some degree of shared variance with the data. This is demonstrated in simulated and experimental data, where to our knowledge, this work constitutes the first demonstration of using information from simultaneously acquired EEG to inform and improve the reconstruction of FMRI data.

Methods

Our rank constrained FMRI reconstruction framework solves:

$$min || y-\Phi(UV^{*})|| s.t. rank(UV^{*})=r$$

where $$$U$$$ and $$$V$$$ correspond to the spatial and temporal components of the space-time data, and $$$\Phi$$$ incorporates k-space trajectory and coil sensitivity information.

Given an external temporal constraint $$$v$$$, which can be an $$$n\times 1$$$ vector or an $$$n\times c$$$ matrix with $$$c$$$ different constraints, we solve:

$$min ||y-\Phi(UV^{*})|| s.t. rank(UV^{*})=r, v\in V$$

This constraint enforces the explicit inclusion of $$$v$$$ in the subspace spanned by $$$V$$$, where remaining high-variance temporal components are estimated from the under-sampled data as usual (Fig. 1). We implemented this by iteratively removing the projection of the estimate onto $$$v$$$, estimating the $$$r-c$$$ remaining components, and enforcing data consistency on the sum until convergence.

We tested this approach in simulations using temporal constraints correlatedwith a ground truth component (by r2=0.2, 0.5) at acceleration factors of R=4/8/16, compared to a low-rank reconstruction using no external constraint. We also simulated reconstruction of two ROIs with identical time-courses that have a small latency offset, at R=10. Data were also acquired using radial Cartesian sampling3 at 3T, reconstructed at TR = 500 ms (2 mm isotropic, R=10), in 30 s/30 s off/on block design finger tapping experiments with a self-cued 1 s delay between the right and left hands. In both cases, temporal derivatives were used as temporal constraints to capture the latency differences.

Finally, 4-slice fully-sampled EPI (3T, TRvol=200 ms) data with simultaneously acquired EEG (32-channels, Brain Products) were used to evaluate the benefit of EEG information in a retrospectively under-sampled reconstruction. The four highest variance theta band power time-courses (across channels) were extracted from the artefact-corrected EEG data. These were convolved with a canonical HRF, and used as temporal constraints in the under-sampled reconstruction of the EPI data (R=10), assuming that EEG signals correlate with FMRI resting state time-courses4.

Results

In Fig. 2, the temporal constraints are shown, alongside the recovered z-stat maps (|z|>3) from a regression analysis. The ROI was well characterized at low acceleration factors, but with increasing acceleration, only the constrained reconstructions showed good recovery, despite only using constraints that only partially correlated with the ROI time-course.

Fig. 3 shows the latency simulation results, where both the recovered time-courses and the z-stat maps (|z|>3) show improved separation of the time-shifted components when the temporal derivative is included in reconstruction. In the experimental data using sinusoidal constraints (Fig. 4), positive/negative relative latencies in left and right motor cortices were only identified when the temporal derivative constraint was used (Fig. 4h, green boxes).

Fig. 5a-d shows the externally derived EEG theta power time-courses, and Fig. 5e shows a single ICA time-course derived from the FMRI ground truth, alongside the representation of this network time-course in the reconstructed temporal components (Figs. 5f-h). The EEG-informed reconstruction improves the characterisation of the ICA component (r=0.84 vs r=0.77), while randomly generated time-courses convolved with the same HRF convey no positive or negative impact (r=0.77).

Discussion

We demonstrated improved recovery of functional modes given external information. This can be used to help identify lower variance components, or to enhance the fidelity of higher variance components. In our approach, the external measure does not need to exactly reflect the signals in the data, so long as there is some shared information. This is particularly valuable in simultaneous EEG-FMRI, given the complex mapping between electrophysiology and FMRI. This framework, which admits prior knowledge without completely restricting the temporal components5,6, allows us to adaptively incorporate external information into the FMRI reconstruction process to facilitate retrieval of network characteristics.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. Chiew, M., Smith, S. M., Koopmans, P. J., Graedel, N. N., Blumensath, T., & Miller, K. L. (2015). k-t FASTER: Acceleration of functional MRI data acquisition using low rank constraints. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 74(2), 353–364.

2. Chiew, M., Graedel, N. N., Mcnab, J. A., Smith, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (2016). Accelerating functional MRI using fixed-rank approximations and radial-cartesian sampling. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (Online Early View)

3. Graedel, N. N., Mcnab, J. A., Chiew, M., & Miller, K. L. (2016). Motion correction for functional MRI with three-dimensional hybrid radial-Cartesian EPI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (Online Early View)

4. Mantini, D., Perrucci, M. G., Del Gratta, C., Romani, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2007). Electrophysiological signatures of resting state networks in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(32), 13170–13175.

5. Lam, F., Zhao, B., Liu, Y., Liang, Z.-P., Weiner, M., & Schuff, N. (2013). Accelerated fMRI using Low-Rank Model and Sparsity Constraints. Proceedings of the 21st ISMRM, #2620.

6. Nguyen, H., & Glover, G. H. (2014). Field-corrected imaging for sparsely-sampled fMRI by exploiting low-rank spatiotemporal structure. Proceedings of the 22nd ISMRM, #327.

Figures

Figure 1 - (a) In standard low-rank fMRI reconstruction, the use of low-rank methods allows high variance functional components (i.e. spatial and temporal components) to be directly estimated from heavily under-sampled data. (b) An external measure, such as knowledge of the task-FMRI experimental design, or EEG power fluctuations can also be used to constrain the reconstruction. We integrate this information by iteratively appending it to the estimated temporal components, and allowing the low-rank reconstruction to adaptively accommodate the new information. This may improve recovery of the functional subspace (orange, d), which may otherwise be too subtle to survive reconstruction (c).

Figure 2 - Simulations showing differences in recovery fidelity with respect to the amount of informative content in the constraint, and acceleration factor. Top row: low-rank reconstruction with no external constraint, showing loss of ROI (letter “B”) recovery in the regression maps at R = 8, 16. Middle row: a reconstruction using an external constraint with only 20% shared variance (r^=0.2) with the truth, showing improved recovery, despite the considerable lack of fidelity in the constraint. Bottom row: an external constraint of 50% shared variance (r2=0.5), showing very good recovery of the ROI even at R = 16.

Figure 3 – Latency simulation highlighting the difference in the recovery of latency differences between the “F” and “M” ROIs. Top row: Ground truth, showing the “F” time-course (blue) and the “M” time-course (red). Also shown is the temporal derivative used to model small latency shifts. Middle row: Unconstrained low-rank reconstruction, which illustrates that both ROIs have collapsed onto a single “common” mode, with the distinction between the ROIs largely lost. Bottom row: Reconstruction using the temporal derivative constraint, which resolves the distinct latency differences between the ROIs, which is clearly visible in the latency-based z-statistic maps on the right.

Figure 4 – Finger-tapping experiment: (a) The task waveform and temporal derivative. (b) A sinusoidal waveform at the task frequency (1/60 Hz) was used as the external constraint (r^2=0.52), along with its temporal derivative. (c-h) Regression maps corresponding to the task (left, |z|>5) and the latency shift (right, |z|>3, masked by task response). (c-d) The unconstrained reconstruction showed a weak main task response, and no relative latencies. (e-f) Using the sinusoidal constraint improved the main task component, but only with the additional derivative constraint (g-h) are relative latencies recovered (as a negative response in left-M1, and positive in right-M1).

Figure 5 – Constrained reconstruction of simultaneously acquired EEG and FMRI data, using a HRF-convolved theta-band power time-courses. This is compared to HRF-convolved random time-courses, with 4-components each shown in (a-d). Compared to using no constraint (f, r=0.771), including random HRF-convolved time-courses does not improve or reduce reconstruction fidelity, as expected (g, r=0.772). Improved recovery of the ground truth resting state network time-course is provided, however, by the EEG-informed reconstruction (h, r = 0.838). This is consistent with the EEG constraint being functionally informative, while the uninformative random constraints use up degrees-of-freedom, but otherwise do not degrade reconstruction.

Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 25 (2017)
0152