% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{Muganga:1010401,
author = {Muganga, Tobias and Sasse, Leonard and Larabi, Daouia and
Eickhoff, Simon and Patil, Kaustubh},
title = {{V}oxel- versus {ROI}-level {N}uisance {R}egression for
{F}unctional {C}onnectivity {A}nalyses},
reportid = {FZJ-2023-03041},
year = {2023},
abstract = {Introduction: Individual-level analysis of functional
connectivity (FC) using large datasets demandsconsiderations
of computational efficiency. The extraction of FC involves
two mainpreparatory steps: 1) cleaning the voxel-level time
series from nuisance variables, and 2)aggregation of the
voxel-level time series into region-level time series.
Computationalefficiency can be improved by cleaning the
region-level instead of the voxel-level time series.When
using mean aggregation, the two approaches should be
numerically equivalent(Friston et al., 2006). However, the
two approaches have not been systematically comparedfor
another popular option of aggregation: the first
eigenvariate. While these two aggregationschemes are similar
for regions with homogenous voxel-level time series, the
firsteigenvariate better captures the signal of
heterogeneous regions (Friston et al., 2006). In thecurrent
study, we evaluated individual specificity and the capacity
to predict cognitive scoresof FC obtained from both cleaning
approaches and aggregation schemes.MethodWe used FIX-cleaned
resting-state data acquired with RL- and LR-phase
encodingdirections (Smith et al., 2013) from two scan
sessions (one day apart) from the HCP-YAS1200 release (N =
376; NFemale = 182; Mage = 28.75; SDage = 3.82; Van Essen et
al., 2013).The 400 region version of the Schaefer atlas
(Schaefer et al., 2018) was used to computeaggregate
region-level time series as the mean or first eigenvariate
of all voxel time serieswithin each region. Signal cleaning
was applied either voxelwise with subsequentaggregation into
the region-level time series or aggregation was performed
first followed bycleaning. Cleaning steps included linear
detrending, bandpass filtering (0.01-0.08 Hz) andlinear
nuisance regression. Nuisance variables included mean white
matter (WM), meancerebral spinal fluid (CSF), mean gray
matter (GM), 24 motion regressors (Friston et al.,1996), and
21 aCompCor regressors from WM, CSF and GM (Muschelli et
al., 2014). Next,FC was computed as Pearson’s correlation
between all pairs of regional time series and thetwo FCs
from the same session acquired with two phase encoding
directions wereaveraged. We assessed individual specificity
in the resulting FCs by computing identificationaccuracy
(Finn et al., 2015) and differential identifiability (Amico
$\&$ Goni, 2018). Thepredictive capacity of interindividual
differences from FC was assessed using kernel
ridgeregression in a 5-fold cross-validation scheme with 5
repeats to predict age and fivecognitive scores; cognitive
flexibility, working memory, fluid intelligence, vocabulary
andreading.Results: We found that moving from voxelwise
cleaning to regionwise cleaning led to a 2-folddecrease in
computation time per FC (Msaving = 110 sec.). While
individual specificity betweenthe two cleaning approaches
was similar in the case of mean aggregation,
regionwisecleaning resulted in higher individual specificity
for first eigenvariate aggregation (Fig. 1). Asimilar yet
more diverse picture was found for the prediction analysis.
Here, for meanaggregation both cleaning approaches performed
similarly for all predicted scores. Whenusing eigenvariate
aggregation, both cleaning approaches performed equally for
ageprediction. However, regionwise cleaning resulted in
better prediction performance of fluidintelligence,
vocabulary and reading while voxelwise cleaning led to
higher predictionperformance for cognitive flexibility, and
working memory scores (Fig. 2).Conclusion: With our
findings, we encourage a more efficient default of
regionwise cleaning for FCextraction when mean aggregation
is used. In the first eigenvariate aggregation,
theindividual specificity was better with regionwise
cleaning but prediction results were mixed.Thus, further
investigation is advised before extending the regionwise
cleaning for firsteigenvariate aggregation.},
month = {Jul},
date = {2023-07-22},
organization = {Organization for Human Brain Mapping
(OHBM), Montreal (Canada), 22 Jul 2023
- 26 Jul 2023},
subtyp = {After Call},
cin = {INM-7},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)24},
doi = {10.34734/FZJ-2023-03041},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010401},
}