↓ Skip to main content

Prioritizing spatial accuracy in high-resolution fMRI data using multivariate feature weight mapping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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.
Title
Prioritizing spatial accuracy in high-resolution fMRI data using multivariate feature weight mapping
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Stelzer, Tilo Buschmann, Gabriele Lohmann, Daniel S. Margulies, Robert Trampel, Robert Turner

Abstract

Although ultra-high-field fMRI at field strengths of 7T or above provides substantial gains in BOLD contrast-to-noise ratio, when very high-resolution fMRI is required such gains are inevitably reduced. The improvement in sensitivity provided by multivariate analysis techniques, as compared with univariate methods, then becomes especially welcome. Information mapping approaches are commonly used, such as the searchlight technique, which take into account the spatially distributed patterns of activation in order to predict stimulus conditions. However, the popular searchlight decoding technique, in particular, has been found to be prone to spatial inaccuracies. For instance, the spatial extent of informative areas is generally exaggerated, and their spatial configuration is distorted. We propose the combination of a non-parametric and permutation-based statistical framework with linear classifiers. We term this new combined method Feature Weight Mapping (FWM). The main goal of the proposed method is to map the specific contribution of each voxel to the classification decision while including a correction for the multiple comparisons problem. Next, we compare this new method to the searchlight approach using a simulation and ultra-high-field 7T experimental data. We found that the searchlight method led to spatial inaccuracies that are especially noticeable in high-resolution fMRI data. In contrast, FWM was more spatially precise, revealing both informative anatomical structures as well as the direction by which voxels contribute to the classification. By maximizing the spatial accuracy of ultra-high-field fMRI results, global multivariate methods provide a substantial improvement for characterizing structure-function relationships.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 40%
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Professor 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 24%
Neuroscience 14 23%
Engineering 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,807,943
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,656
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,171
of 224,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#21
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 224,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.