bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Rajendra, J. K.

Publications and source records attributed to Rajendra, J. K..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

A Set of FMRI Quality Control Tools in AFNI: Systematic, in-depth and interactive QC with afni_proc.py and more

Quality control (QC) assessment is a vital part of FMRI processing and analysis, and a typically under-discussed aspect of reproducibility. This includes checking datasets at their very earliest stages (acquisition and conversion) through their processing steps (e.g., alignment and motion correction) to regression modeling (correct stimuli, no collinearity, valid fits, enough degrees of freedom, etc.) for each subject. There are a wide variety of features to verify throughout any single subject processing pipeline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. We present several FMRI preprocessing QC features available in the AFNI toolbox, many of which are automatically generated by the pipeline-creation tool, afni_proc.py. These items include: a modular HTML document that covers full single subject processing from the raw data through statistical modeling; several review scripts in the results directory of processed data; and command line tools for identifying subjects with one or more quantitative properties across a group (such as triaging warnings, making exclusion criteria or creating informational tables). The HTML itself contains several buttons that efficiently facilitate interactive investigations into the data, when deeper checks are needed beyond the systematic images. The pages are linkable, so that users can evaluate individual items across a group, for increased sensitivity to differences (e.g., in alignment or regression modeling images). Finally, the QC document contains rating buttons for each "QC block", as well as comment fields for each, to facilitate both saving and sharing the evaluations. This increases the specificity of QC, as well as its shareability, as these files can be shared with others and potentially uploaded into repositories, promoting transparency and open science. We describe the features and applications of these QC tools for FMRI.

neuroscience↗

A tail of two sides: Artificially doubled false positive rates in neuroimaging due to the sidedness choice with t-tests

One-sided t-tests are widely used in neuroimaging data analysis. While such a test may be applicable when investigating specific regions and prior information about directionality is present, we argue here that it is often mis-applied, with severe consequences for false positive rate (FPR) control. Conceptually, a pair of one-sided t-tests conducted in tandem (e.g., to test separately for both positive and negative effects), effectively amounts to a two-sided t-test. However, replacing the two-sided test with a pair of one-sided tests without multiple comparisons correction essentially doubles the intended FPR of statements made about the same study; that is, the actual family-wise error (FWE) of results at the whole brain level would be 10% instead of the 5% intended by the researcher. Therefore, we strongly recommend that, unless otherwise explicitly justified, two-sided t-tests be applied instead of two simultaneous one-sided t-tests.

neuroscience↗

FMRI processing with AFNI: Some comments and corrections on \"Exploring the Impact of Analysis Software on Task fMRI Results\"

A recent study posted on bioRxiv by Bowring, Maumet and Nichols aimed to compare results of FMRI data that had been processed with three commonly used software packages (AFNI, FSL and SPM). Their stated purpose was to use \"default\" settings of each softwares pipeline for task-based FMRI, and then to quantify overlaps in final clustering results and to measure similarity/dissimilarity in the final outcomes of packages. While in theory the setup sounds simple (implement each packages defaults and compare results), practical realities make this difficult. For example, different softwares would recommend different spatial resolutions of the final data, but for the sake of comparisons, the same value must be used across all. Moreover, we would say that AFNI does not have an explicit default pipeline available: a wide diversity of datasets and study designs are acquired across the neuroimaging community, often requiring bespoke tailoring of basic processing rather than a \"one-size-fits-all\" pipeline. However, we do have strong recommendations for certain steps, and we are also aware that the choice of a given step might place requirements on other processing steps. Given the very clear reporting of the AFNI pipeline used in Bowring et al. paper, we take this opportunity to comment on some of these aspects of processing with AFNI here, clarifying a few mistakes therein and also offering recommendations. We provide point-by-point considerations of using AFNIs processing pipeline design tool at the individual level, afni_proc.py, along with supplementary programs; while specifically discussed in the context of the present usage, many of these choices may serve as useful starting points for broader processing. It is our intention/hope that the user should examine data quality at every step, and we demonstrate how this is facilitated in AFNI, as well.

neuroscience↗