Back

Impact of multi-echo ICA modeling decisions on motor-task fMRI analysis

Reddy, N. A.; Medina, M. C.; Northrop, J. N.; Zou, C.; Clements, R. G.; Nehrujee, A.; Sandhu, M.; Bright, M. G.

2025-11-28 bioengineering
10.1101/2025.11.25.690440 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Multi-echo independent component analysis (ME-ICA) has been demonstrated to improve sensitivity and reliability of task functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and, in particular, motor-task data with inherent task-correlated head motion. However, previous work has shown that an overly aggressive ME-ICA denoising approach may unintentionally remove task-related signal, while a more conservative approach may not effectively mitigate noise. While the effects of varied implementations of ME-ICA on signal and noise characteristics have been tested thoroughly in breath-hold data, the effects of similar modeling decisions have not been studied in motor-task data, which present with a more localized neural response. Here, we tested and compared the impacts of three analysis methods using rejected ME-ICA components as regressors in subject-level modeling: Aggressive (simple inclusion of ME-ICA regressors), Moderate (excluding task-correlated ME-ICA regressors from the model), and Conservative (orthogonalization of ME-ICA regressors to the core model and accepted ME-ICA components). We applied these methods to data from healthy and multiple sclerosis populations that included performance of hand-grasp, shoulder-abduction, and ankle-flexion tasks. We found that when the amount of head motion and its correlation with the task was high and the expected task-evoked signal was relatively low, the Conservative method led to significantly higher activation, t-statistics, and test-retest similarity in motor regions compared to the Aggressive method. Future motor-task studies may wish to implement similar models to prevent loss of motor signal, while still mitigating the effects of task-correlated head motion.

Published in Aperture Neuro · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.