{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03266864658464149, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014849384811200678, 'mean_word_length': 5.935294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Optimizing preprocessing and analysis pipelines for single‐subject fMRI. I. Standard temporal motion and physiological noise correction methods

Subject‐specific artifacts caused by head motion and physiological noise are major confounds in BOLD fMRI analyses. However, there is little consensus on the optimal choice of data preprocessing steps to minimize these effects. To evaluate the effects of various preprocessing strategies, we present a framework which comprises a combination of (1) nonparametric testing including reproducibility and prediction metrics of the data‐driven NPAIRS framework (Strother et al. [2002]: NeuroImage 15:747–771), and (2) intersubject comparison of SPM effects, using DISTATIS (a three‐way version of metric multidimensional scaling (Abdi et al. [2009]: NeuroImage 45:89–95). It is shown that the quality of brain activation maps may be significantly limited by sub‐optimal choices of data preprocessing steps (or “pipeline”) in a clinical task‐design, an fMRI adaptation of the widely used Trail‐Making Test. The relative importance of motion correction, physiological noise correction, motion parameter regression, and temporal detrending were examined for fMRI data acquired in young, healthy adults. Analysis performance and the quality of activation maps were evaluated based on Penalized Discriminant Analysis (PDA). The relative importance of different preprocessing steps was assessed by (1) a nonparametric Friedman rank test for fixed sets of preprocessing steps, applied to all subjects; and (2) evaluating pipelines chosen specifically for each subject. Results demonstrate that preprocessing choices have significant, but subject‐dependant effects, and that individually‐optimized pipelines may significantly improve the reproducibility of fMRI results over fixed pipelines. This was demonstrated by the detection of a significant interaction with motion parameter regression and physiological noise correction, even though the range of subject head motion was small across the group (≪ 1 voxel). Optimizing pipelines on an individual‐subject basis also revealed brain activation patterns either weak or absent under fixed pipelines, which has implications for the overall interpretation of fMRI data, and the relative importance of preprocessing methods. Hum Brain Mapp, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.