Kwan-Jin Jung1 and Hae-Min Jung2
1Human Magnetic Resonance Center, Institute of Applied Life Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States, 2Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, MA, United States
Synopsis
The
temporal derivative has been considered as a mathematical solution for the
latency variation of the hemodynamic response function (HRF) in the general
linear model (GLM) analysis of the task-based functional MRI (fMRI). A method
of combining the primary and derivate estimates was developed by Calhoun and
its implementation was introduced. However, serious defects were revealed in
the existing methods from a GLM analysis of an event-related fMRI. Here, the
method is revised to provide a correct combined estimate using a weighted
square average method. The proposed method was confirmed with event-related
fMRI studies at various phases of the double Gamma HRF.
Introduction
The
temporal derivative has been considered as a mathematical solution for
the latency variation of the hemodynamic response function (HRF) in the general
linear model (GLM) analysis of the task-based functional MRI (fMRI). A method
of combining the primary and derivate estimates was developed using a weighted square
summation (WSS) method1 and its
implementation script was provided.2 However, serious defects were revealed in the
existing methods from a GLM analysis of an event-related fMRI: (i) The sign of
the combined estimate was not reliable; (ii) The magnitude of the
combined estimate was not normalized. Here, the Calhoun’s WSS method is revised to
provide a correct sign and magnitude of the combined estimate using a weighted
square averaging (WSA) method.
Methods
The sign of the combined estimate α in Calhoun’s1 and Pernet’s3 papers was only determined by
the sign of the primary (non-derivative) estimate β1. However, β1 can be negative
when the magnitude of β1
is smaller than the magnitude of the derivative estimate β2. This is corrected by assigning
a negative sign to α only when both β1 and β2
are negative (see Equation 3). Regarding the normalization defect,
α in the Calhoun's paper1 was essentially a weighted sum with
the design matrix values as weights, not a weighted average, and thus the
magnitude of Calhoun’s estimate is problematically dependent on both the number
of temporal points and the magnitudes of the design matrix (xt) (see Equations 2 and 4).2,3
This paper proposes these respective corrections: (i) The combined
estimate’s sign matches the signs of the parameter estimates it is combining;
and (ii) the weighted sum of squared parameter estimates is divided by the sum
of the weights, creating a weighted average within the same range of the
parameter estimates it is based on. The problems in the existing methods as
well as the effectiveness of these corrections were confirmed using fMRI data of
an event-related design for the bilateral finger button press task. The event
was a single button press of randomly chosen hand side followed by a fixation
with a random inter-stimuli interval of 3 to 8s (scan time=310s). A blocked
design fMRI was also collected for a reference BOLD activation map with a block
duration of 18s followed by 18s fixation (scan time=304s). The data was
collected at 3T MRI for 2 volunteers with 20-ch head and neck RF coil, TR=1.5
s, slice acceleration=2, TE=30ms, and voxel=3x3x3mm3.
The GLM analysis was processed using FSL FEAT with the
double Gamma HRF and a routine preprocessing except the slice timing correction.
The recorded button response times were used in the GLM model instead of the
visual stimuli time to improve the temporal accuracy of button presses. The FSL
‘fsleyes’ program was used in displaying the parameter estimates in both
positive and negative polarities simultaneously. The WSA method was programmed in
a ‘perl’ script using the FSL’s ‘fslmaths’ library. The script also calculated
the contrasted estimates of the WSA- and WSS-combined estimates for a
higher level analysis. The
existing and proposed methods were tested with a range of HRF’s phases
to simulate the latency of BOLD responses.
Results
The BOLD activation maps of the blocked and event-related
designs are shown in Fig. 1.
In the block fMRI the expected motor regions were activated in the primary
estimate while they were negligibly activated in the derivative estimate.
However, the BOLD maps of the event-related fMRI showed more activation in the
derivative estimate, particularly in the right hand button press, which
affected the ‘R>L’ contrast as well. The
z-scores of the BOLD activation are
summarized in Table 1 for a
range of HRF’s phases. The relative contribution of the primary and the derivative estimates were
dependent on the phase of HRF, which resulted in unreliable combined estimates.
The proposed WSA method indeed restored the BOLD signal,
while the existing methods failed (see Fig. 2
and Table 1).
The WSA method was confirmed to yield a reliable BOLD map for a range of HRF's phases, which is shown in Fig. 3
and Table 1.
Furthermore, the higher level ‘R>L’ contrast was reliably obtained from the WSA-processed
R and L estimates for a range of HRF's phases. The same trend was reproduced
in another subject.
Conclusions
The
proposed WSA method was confirmed to provide
a correct sign and magnitude for a range of HRF's phases while the existing WSS
methods failed. Furthermore, the proposed method was confirmed to estimate a
correct higher level contrast between the WSA estimates. The temporal
derivative method in GLM can finally be applied to the fMRI analysis without
the effect of the latency problem using the proposed WSA method.Acknowledgements
A
script provided from Dr. Steffener was helpful in obtaining the weights from
the design matrix stored in the FSL Feat directory.References
1. Calhoun
VD, et al. fMRI analysis with the general linear model: removal of
latency-induced amplitude bias by incorporation of hemodynamic derivative
terms. Neuroimage 2004;22(1):252-257.
2. Steffener
J, et al. Investigating hemodynamic response variability at the group level
using basis functions. Neuroimage 2010;49(3):2113-2122.
3. Pernet CR. Misconceptions in the use
of the General Linear Model applied to functional MRI: a tutorial for junior
neuro-imagers. Front Neurosci 2014;8:1.