Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is one of the most widely used tools to study the neural underpinnings of human cognition. Standard analysis of fMRI data relies on a general linear model (GLM) approach to separate stimulus induced signals from noise. Crucially, this approach relies on a number of assumptions about the data which, for inferences to be valid, must be met. The current paper reviews the GLM approach to analysis of fMRI time-series, focusing in particular on the degree to which such data abides by the assumptions of the GLM framework, and on the methods that have been developed to correct for any violation of those assumptions. Rather than biasing estimates of effect size, the major consequence of non-conformity to the assumptions is to introduce bias into estimates of the variance, thus affecting test statistics, power, and false positive rates. Furthermore, this bias can have pervasive effects on both individual subject and group-level statistics, potentially yielding qualitatively different results across replications, especially after the thresholding procedures commonly used for inference-making.
Highlights
Over the past 20 years the study of human cognition has benefited greatly from innovations in magnetic resonance imaging, in particular the development of techniques to detect physiological markers of neural activity
The most widely used of these techniques capitalizes on the changes in blood flow and oxygenation associated with neural activity, and on the differing magnetic properties of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood
Increased concentrations of oxyhemoglobin produce increased T2 relaxation times and a relative increase in image intensity. This blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) contrast mechanism forms the basis of functional magnetic resonance imaging
Summary
Over the past 20 years the study of human cognition has benefited greatly from innovations in magnetic resonance imaging, in particular the development of techniques to detect physiological markers of neural activity. One criticism to this approach raised in Calvisi et al (2004) and Friston et al (2000b) is that while data driven computation of Volterra series parameters may allow for a better input–output mapping, it does so in a black-box fashion without being informative on what are the processes generating the non-linearities In response to these criticisms Friston et al (2000b) present evidence for the non-linearities expressed in the Balloon model of hemodynamic signal transduction (see Buxton et al, 1998) being compatible with a second order Volterra characterization, adding biological plausibility to the model. To achieve sufficient power and acceptable reliability, it might be necessary to obtain a sample of 25–27 participants (Desmond and Glover, 2002; Thirion et al, 2007), which is about 30% more than the current typical sample size of 15–20
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have