Upload
osborne-martin
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What is signal? What is noise?
• Signal, literally defined– Amount of current in receiver coil
• What can we control?– Scanner properties (e.g., field strength)– Experimental task timing– Subject compliance (through training)– Head motion (to some degree)
• What can’t we control?– Electrical variability in scanner– Physiologic variation (e.g., heart rate)– Some head motion– Differences across subjects
Signal, noise, and the General Linear Model
MYMeasured Data
Amplitude (solve for)
Design Model
Noise
Cf. Boynton et al., 1996
Effects of SNR: Simulation Data
• Hemodynamic response– Unit amplitude– Flat prestimulus baseline
• Gaussian Noise– Temporally uncorrelated (white)– Noise assumed to be constant over epoch
• SNR varied across simulations– Max: 2.0, Min: 0.125
What are typical SNRs for fMRI data?
• Signal amplitude– MR units: 5-10 units (baseline: ~700)– Percent signal change: 0.5-2%
• Noise amplitude– MR units: 10-50– Percent signal change: 0.5-5%
• SNR range– Total range: 0.1 to 4.0 – Typical: 0.2 – 0.5
Theoretical Effects of Field Strength
• SNR = signal / noise• SNR increases linearly with field strength
– Signal increases with square of field strength– Noise increases linearly with field strength– A 4.0T scanner should have 2.7x SNR of 1.5T
scanner
• T1 and T2* both change with field strength– T1 increases, reducing signal recovery– T2* decreases, increasing BOLD contrast
Measured Effects of Field Strength
• SNR usually increases by less than theoretical prediction– Sub-linear increases in SNR; large vessel effects may
be independent of field strength
• Where tested, clear advantages of higher field have been demonstrated– But, physiological noise may counteract gains at high
field ( > ~4.0T)
• Spatial extent increases with field strength• Increased susceptibility artifacts
Types of Noise
• Thermal noise– Responsible for variation in background– Eddy currents, scanner heating
• Power fluctuations– Typically caused by scanner problems
• Variation in subject cognition– Timing of processes
• Head motion effects• Physiological changes• Differences across brain regions
– Functional differences– Large vessel effects
• Artifact-induced problems
Variability in Subject Behavior: Issues
• Cognitive processes are not static– May take time to engage– Often variable across trials– Subjects’ attention/arousal wax and wane
• Subjects adopt different strategies– Feedback- or sequence-based– Problem-solving methods
• Subjects engage in non-task cognition– Non-task periods do not have the absence of thinking
What can we do about these problems?
Intersubject Variability
A & B: Responses across subjects for 2 sessions
C & D: Responses within single subjects across days
E & F: Responses within single subjects within a session
- Aguirre et al., 1998
BA
C D
E F
Implications of Inter-Subject Variability
• Use of individual subject’s hemodynamic responses– Corrects for differences in latency/shape
• Suggests iterative HDR analysis– Initial analyses use canonical HDR– Functional ROIs drawn, interrogated for new HDR– Repeat until convergence
• Requires appropriate statistical measures– Random effects analyses – Use statistical tests across subjects as dependent measure
(rather than averaged data)
Spatial Distribution of Noise
A: Anatomical Image
B: Noise image
C: Physiological noise
D: Motion-related noise
E: Phantom (all noise)
F: Phantom (Physiological)
- Kruger & Glover (2001)
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
1 51 101 151 201
High Frequency Noise
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Fundamental Rule of SNR
For Gaussian noise, experimental power increases with the square root of the
number of observations
Trial Averaging
• Static signal, variable noise– Assumes that the MR data recorded on each trial are
composed of a signal + (random) noise
• Effects of averaging– Signal is present on every trial, so it remains constant
through averaging– Noise randomly varies across trials, so it decreases
with averaging– Thus, SNR increases with averaging
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Example of Trial Averaging-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Average of 16 trials with SNR = 0.6
Increasing Power increases Spatial Extent
Subject 1 Subject 2Trials Averaged
4
16
36
64
100
144
500 ms
16-20 s
500 ms
…
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.44 2.41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.36 3.68 2.79 1.78 1.84
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 6.79 8.36 2.09 -0.50 -3.08 -0.96
0.00 0.00 3.20 5.46 2.00 6.50 6.13 5.67 -0.06 -3.41 -1.56
2.66 2.42 0.01 5.81 5.88 5.86 6.84 5.63 3.71 -1.76 -2.25
3.74 3.42 1.43 0.68 2.13 6.47 8.05 8.96 10.27 2.45 0.29
4.60 2.27 0.77 1.41 0.80 1.71 9.65 9.91 12.19 3.17 1.75
0.94 1.38 1.22 2.96 0.30 -1.58 2.19 4.10 5.84 3.06 0.53
-0.46 -1.11 -0.31 1.27 -0.94 -4.97 -3.26 -1.93 -1.07 0.28 -1.21
-4.05 -2.33 -2.67 -2.17 -1.64 -7.44 -7.22 -4.83 -3.93 0.00 0.55
A B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Peak latency of reference HDR
4 sec 5 sec 6 sec 4 sec 5 sec 6 sec
Vmax 89 96 72 25 80 98
Correlation of data with prediction
0.997 0.995 0.993 0.960 0.994 0.998
Subject1 Subject 2
Number of Trials Averaged
Num
ber
of S
igni
fica
nt V
oxel
s Subject 1
Subject 2
VN = Vmax[1 - e(-0.016 * N)]
Effects of Signal-Noise Ratio on extent of activation: Empirical Data
Active Voxel Simulation
Signal + Noise (SNR = 1.0)
Noise1000 Voxels, 100 Active
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 3 5 7 9
11
13
15
17
19
• Signal waveform taken from observed data.
• Signal amplitude distribution: Gamma (observed).
• Assumed Gaussian white noise.
Effects of Signal-Noise Ratio on extent of activation:
Simulation Data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 50 100 150 200
SNR = 0.10
SNR = 0.15
SNR = 0.25
SNR = 1.00
SNR = 0.52 (Young)
SNR = 0.35 (Old)
Number of Trials Averaged
Num
ber
of A
ctiv
ated
Vox
els
Old (66 trials) Young (70 trials) Ratio (Y/O)Observed 26 53 2.0Predicted 57% 97% 1.7
Explicit and Implicit Signal Averaging
r =.42; t(129) = 5.3; p < .0001
r =.82; t(10) = 4.3; p < .001
A
B
Caveats
• Signal averaging is based on assumptions– Data = signal + temporally invariant noise– Noise is uncorrelated over time
• If assumptions are violated, then averaging ignores potentially valuable information– Amount of noise varies over time– Some noise is temporally correlated (physiology)
• Nevertheless, averaging provides robust, reliable method for determining brain activity
Visual HDR sampled with a 1-sec TR
0.13%
0.01%-0.02%
-0.08%
-0.04%
-0.18%
-0.12%
-0.18%
0.29%
0.53%
0.71%
0.60%
0.44%
0.34%
0.24%
0.16%
0.02%
-0.04%-0.07%
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Visual HDR sampled with a 2-sec TR
0.01%
-0.08%
-0.18% -0.18%
0.53%
0.60%
0.34%
0.16%
-0.04%
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Visual HDR sampled with a 3-sec TR
0.13%
-0.08%
-0.12%
0.53%
0.44%
0.16%
-0.07%
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comparison of Visual HDR sampled with 1,2, and 3-sec TR
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Visual HDRs with 10% diff sampled with a 1-sec TR
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Visual HDR with 10% diff sampled with a 3-sec TR
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.80%
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Where are partial volume effects most problematic?
• Ventricles
• Grey / white boundary
• Blood vessels
55
60
65
70
75
0
20
40
60
60
65
70
75
80
50
55
60
65
70
40
45
50
55
60 Activation Profiles
White Matter
Gray / White
Gray / WhiteVentricle
Ventricle
Filtering Approaches
• Identify unwanted frequency variation– Drift (low-frequency)– Physiology (high-frequency)– Task overlap (high-frequency)
• Reduce power around those frequencies through application of filters
• Potential problem: removal of frequencies composing response of interest