smoia | |
@SteMoia | |
s.moia.research@gmail.com |
Tainan, 15.06.2025
Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Open Science Special Interest Group (OHBM); physiopy (https://github.com/physiopy)
1. Bianciardi et al., 2009 (Magn. Reson. Imaging.); 2. Triantafyllou et al., 2005 (NeuroImage);
3. jorge et al., 2013 (Magn. Reson. Imaging.), Reynaud et al., 2017 (Magn. Reson. Med.)
Physiology-related variance varies:
1. Krentz et al., 2023 (bioRxiv), Carlton et al., 2024 (bioRxiv), Moia et al., 2024 (bioRxiv);
2. Birn et al., 2009 (NeuroImage), image courtesy of Jingyuan Chen; 3. Lee et al., 2023 (HBM)
Physiology-related variance varies:
Ventilation
Task (convolved)
Image courtesy of Dimo Ivanov
Changes in
Haemodynamics
Neurovascular
Coupling
Changes in Oxygen Metabolism
Changes in
BOLD signal
(Venous) Vasculature
Arrows indicate causal influence
Image courtesy of Dimo Ivanov
Changes in
Haemodynamics
Neurovascular
Coupling
Changes in Oxygen Metabolism
Changes in
BOLD signal
(Venous) Vasculature
Arrows indicate causal influence
Cerebrovascular Reactivity (CVR) is the response of cerebral vessels to a vasoactive stimulus (e.g. CO2) to provide sufficient O2 to cerebral tissues¹
1. Liu et al., 2018 (Neuroimage); 2. Pinto et al., 2021 (Front. Physiol.), Moia et al., 2021 (Neuroimage)
CVR can be measured during BOLD fMRI experiments with Breath-holds (BH), that induce the subject into a state of hypercapnia²
This is not the golden standard method, but it is an affordable one.
Motion
CO2
BOLD
1. Frederick et al. 2012 (NeuroImage); 2. Sousa et al. 2014 (Neuroimage)
Different methods have been proposed to take into account the lagged CVR:
Different methods have been proposed to take into account the lag of CVR:
cross-correlation (RIPTiDe)¹,
Lagged GLM (L-GLM)²,
bayesian estimation³, ...
1. Frederick et al. 2012 (NeuroImage); 2. Sousa et al. 2014 (NeuroImage)
3. https://github.com/physimals/quantiphyse-cvr; 4. Moia, Stickland, et al. 2020 (EMBC)
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
An important factor to take into account is to set up denoising and CVR estimation simultaneously⁴
[Moia, Stickland, et al. 2020 (EMBC)]
For comparison:
↓
optimised CVR map and lag map
1. Frederick et al. 2012 (Neuroimage), Sousa et al. 2014 (Neuroimage), Bayes et al., 2024 (biorXiv)
2. Moia, Stickland, et al. 2020 (EMBC), Moia et al. 2021 (Neuroimage)
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
Adopting a lagged GLM, maximising the R² of models including both signal of interest
and known noise, improves BH-based CVR estimation¹..
1. Stickland et al., 2021 (NeuroImage); 2. Zvolanek et al., 2023 (Neuroimage)
Easy additions!
1. Stickland et al., 2021 (NeuroImage); 2. Zvolanek et al., 2023 (Neuroimage)
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) is commonly used to remove motion effects and other sources of noise from fMRI data
Motion + MB artefact
CSF pulsations
Griffanti et al. 2014 (NeuroImage), 2017 (NeuroImage), The tedana Community et al. 2021 (Zenodo)
Timeseries →
Spatial maps →
Power spectrum →
Multi-Echo (ME): we collect the signal multiple times at different TEs to obtain n timeseries per voxel
BOLD [a.u.]
Text
TR
TE
~ BOLD
For each voxel and TR, we can Optimally Combine the echo volumes with a weighted sum based on their contribution to \( T_2^{\star} \)
In this way, spatial CNR and tSNR are maximised and the signal can be recovered in areas of drop-out
Posse et al. 1999 (Magn Reson Med), Poser et al., 2006 (Magn Reson Med)
DuPre et al., 2021 (JOSS)
Assuming monoexponential decay, we can express the
signal percentage change as:
\[ S_{SPC} \approx \Delta\rho - TE \cdot \Delta R_2^{\star} + n \quad where \enspace R_2^{\star} = \frac{1}{T_2^{\star}} \]
This let us differentiate BOLD-related (\(\Delta R_2^{\star}\)) from non-BOLD related (\(\Delta\rho\)) changes
Kundu et al. 2012 (NeuroImage)
If we apply ICA, we can fit the timeseries of the components to either sub-models and automatically classify them
Reddy et al., 2024 (Imaging Neuroscience)
Increasing Motion
Single Echo →
Multi-Echo →
Multi-Echo & ICA →
What is the best way to denoise BH data after ICA?
Being too aggressive might remove the signal of interest,
but being too conservative might keep too much noise in the model.
We tested the best approach by controlling the variance removed by the independent components
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
Raw
Single Echo
Multi-Echo
Aggressive ME-ICA
Moderate ME-ICA
Conservative ME-ICA
Motion
Performing denoising in sequential steps, rather than in parallel, might reintroduce removed artefacts
Lindquist et al. 2019 (Hum. Brain Mapp.)
CNR of lag maps | SimMot | SeqMot | NoMot |
---|---|---|---|
GM-WM | 0.52 ±0.21 | 0.46 ±0.26 | 0.49 ±0.25 |
GM-Putamen | 0.47 ±0.22 | 0.44 ±0.21 | 0.44 ±0.21 |
GM-Cerebellum | 0.82 ±0.15 | 0.69 ±0.17* | 0.69 ±0.16* |
Non optimising leads to underestimate the CVR, especially in subcortical areas.
Lag maps show anatomical consistency
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
Different lag responses, coherent with previous evidence (e.g. Putamen has earlier response than GM)
Area mostly affected by motion! →
Moia, Stickland, et al. 2020 (EMBC)
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
Single Echo
Multi-Echo
Aggressive
Moderate
Conservative
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
CVR amplitude
CVR lag
Moia et al. 2021 (NeuroImage)
\( \cdot \) timepoint \( - \) session
Motion (FD)
Changes in BOLD (DVARS)
Raw
Single Echo
Multi-Echo
Aggressive ME-ICA
Moderate ME-ICA
Conservative ME-ICA
*Less slope is better
ME-CON should be better than OC-MPR in temporal-dependent application
Example of application: timeseries clustering (Self-Organising Maps, 20 clusters)
Submitted to ISMRM 2022
What is the best way to denoise the data after ICA?
Regression based:
Aggressive approach: nuisance regression using only the rejected components.
Non aggressive (partial regression) approach: all the components are considered, but only the rejected components are regressed out of the data.
Orthogonalised approach: the rejected components are orthogonalised with respect to the other components.
4D-based approach (similar to M/EEG): reconstruct volumes on noise, then subtract it from the original data.
\( Y = \) \(A\) \(+\) \(R\) \(+ n \)
Multivariate:
Effect of denoising approach is significant for slope (F(5,354)=177.6, p<0.001) and intercept (F(5,354)=225.7, p<0.001) of the linear regression model
DVARS vs FD
Group level, DVARS vs FD
Slope
Intercept
↓
↓
Average % BOLD and DVARS across all trials
↑
↑
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
Aggressive denoise removes signal of interest
OC and E-02 denoise affects the signal of interest more than ICA denoise
↑
↑
↑
↑
Lag reliability
CVR reliability
CVR reflects the capacity for Cerebral Blood Flow and Volume to increase.
A similar, if not the same, process is driven by Neurovascular Coupling.
Does CVR amplitude predict Neurovascular Coupling?
Is CVR a predictor of natural fluctuations and behavioural responses?
Does it explain part of the individual variability?
Previous literature links CVR with Resting State Fluctuations Amplitudes, due to cross-sectional (inter-subject) and spatial correlation¹
1. Golestani et al., 2016 (Neuroimage), Chen et al., 2023 (bioRxiv), De Vis et al. 2014 (PloS ONE), Kannurpatti et al., 2014 (PloS ONE)
1. Golestani et al., 2016 (Neuroimage), Chen et al., 2023 (bioRxiv),
De Vis et al. 2014 (PloS ONE), Kannurpatti et al., 2014 (PloS ONE)
corr(CVR,RSFA)
1. [adapted from] Power et al. 2017 (Neuroimage)
This susceptibility can be treated either as noise or as meaningful information (e.g. physiological imaging or functional MRI calibration).
Resting State Fluctuations (RSF) are susceptible to physiological signals¹.
1. Zou et al. 2013 (Hum. Brain Mapp.), Mennes et al. 2011 (NeuroImage), Kannurpatti et al. 2014 (PLoS ONE)
Link between Resting State Fluctuations Amplitudes and behavioural responses¹
* ALFF is qualitatively the same as RSFA
ME-MB fMRI: TR = 1.5 s, TEs = 10.6/28.69/46.78/64.87/82.96 ms, MB = 4, GRAPPA = 2, voxel size = 2.4x2.4x3 mm³
10 neurotypical subjects
(5F, age 25-40y)
10 sessions, one week apart, same time of the day
T2w, MP2RAGE, 4 RS,
3 tasks, BH paradigm
CO2 and O2
sampling
↑
Moia et al. (2020), OpenNeuro. [Dataset] doi: 10.18112/openneuro.ds003192.v1.0.1
ME-MB fMRI: TR = 1.5 s, TEs = 10.6/28.69/46.78/64.87/82.96 ms, MB = 4, GRAPPA = 2, voxel size = 2.4x2.4x3 mm³
10 neurotypical subjects
(5F, age 25-40y)
10 sessions, one week apart, same time of the day
T2w, MP2RAGE, 4 RS,
3 tasks, BH paradigm
CO2 and O2
sampling
↑
Moia et al. (2020), OpenNeuro. [Dataset] doi: 10.18112/openneuro.ds003192.v1.0.1
Results thresholded at \(p<0.001\) uncorrected
Results thresholded at \(p<0.001\) uncorrected
Results thresholded at \(p<0.001\) uncorrected
Results thresholded at \(p<0.001\) uncorrected
Results thresholded at \(p<0.001\) uncorrected
We used 3dLMEr¹ to set up the following LME models (R syntax):
Only sex had a significant effect on RSF
1. Golestani et al., 2016 (Neuroimage), Chen et al., 2023 (bioRxiv); 2. Moia et al., 2024 (bioRxiv); 3. Bailes et al., 2023 (eLife)
BOLD-based fMRI, in conjunction with physiological signals, reveals the existence of physiological and vascular brain networks¹.
1. Bright et al. 2020 (NeuroImage), Chen et al., 2020 (NeuroImage)
[adapted from] Moia et al. 2021 (Neuroimage)
Respiratory
challenges
1. Allen et al., 2022 (Nat. Neurosci.) 2. Glasser et al., 2013 (NeuroImage); 3. Huck et al., 2019 (Brain Struct. Func.)
Natural Scenes Dataset (NSD)¹ (T1w, T2w, ToF)
Human Connectome Project (HCP)² and the VENAT atlas³
1. Glasser et al., 2016 (Nat.); 2. Moia er al., 2023 (Zenodo)
1. Griffa et al., 2022 (NeuroImage), Moia er al., 2023 (Zenodo), Preti & Van De Ville, 2019 (Nat. Commun.)
1. Gulban et al., in prep., Gulban et al., 2025 (bioRxiv), image courtesy of Faruk Gulban; 2. Zhong et al., 2024 (Imaging Neurosci.)
A set of easily adoptable toolboxes
Community of users, developers, and researchers interested in physiology
Clear and approachable documentation
Community practices based on consensus
Raw data
BIDSification
phys. data preprocessing
(peak detect.)
physiopy's documentation
&
phys. denoising
phys. imaging
BIDS Extension Proposal
Physiopy's Community Practices
QA/QC
github.com/physiopy | |
physiopy.github.io physiopy-community-guidelines.rtfd.io |
|
physiopy.community@gmail.com s.moia.research@gmail.com |
physiopy-community-guidelines.rtfd.io |
Part of this research is supported by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101109770
Part of this research supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award number K12HD073945, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 713673), a fellowship from La Caixa Foundation (ID 100010434, fellowship code LCF/BQ/IN17/11620063), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ramon y Cajal Fellowship, RYC-2017- 21845), the Spanish State Research Agency (BCBL “Severo Ochoa” excellence accreditation, SEV- 2015-490), the Basque Government (BERC 2018-2021 and PIBA_2019_104), the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MICINN; FJCI-2017-31814)
smoia | |
@SteMoia | |
s.moia.research@gmail.com |
Find the presentation at:
slides.com/smoia/you-re-not-a-brain-in-a-vat-ncku/scroll