↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive smoothing based on Gaussian processes regression increases the sensitivity and specificity of fMRI data

Overview of attention for article published in Human Brain Mapping, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Adaptive smoothing based on Gaussian processes regression increases the sensitivity and specificity of fMRI data
Published in
Human Brain Mapping, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/hbm.23464
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Temporal and spatial filtering of fMRI data is often used to improve statistical power. However, conventional methods, such as smoothing with fixed-width Gaussian filters, remove fine-scale structure in the data, necessitating a tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. Specifically, smoothing may increase sensitivity (reduce noise and increase statistical power) but at the cost loss of specificity in that fine-scale structure in neural activity patterns is lost. Here, we propose an alternative smoothing method based on Gaussian processes (GP) regression for single subjects fMRI experiments. This method adapts the level of smoothing on a voxel by voxel basis according to the characteristics of the local neural activity patterns. GP-based fMRI analysis has been heretofore impractical owing to computational demands. Here, we demonstrate a new implementation of GP that makes it possible to handle the massive data dimensionality of the typical fMRI experiment. We demonstrate how GP can be used as a drop-in replacement to conventional preprocessing steps for temporal and spatial smoothing in a standard fMRI pipeline. We present simulated and experimental results that show the increased sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional smoothing strategies. Hum Brain Mapp, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Other 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Professor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 6 17%
Neuroscience 6 17%
Engineering 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,470,043
of 29,418,433 outputs
Outputs from Human Brain Mapping
#3,522
of 4,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,369
of 425,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Brain Mapping
#51
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,418,433 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.