Cited by 178Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Subtle in-scanner motion biases automated measurement of brain anatomy from in vivo MRI: Motion Bias in Analyses of Structural MRI

Open access
Alexander-Bloch, Aaron, Clasen, Liv, Stockman, Michael, Ronan, Lisa, Lalonde, Francois, Giedd, Jay, Raznahan, Armin·2016·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

While the potential for small amounts of motion in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans to bias the results of functional neuroimaging studies is well appreciated, the impact of in-scanner motion on morphological analysis of structural MRI is relatively under-studied. Even among "good quality" structural scans, there may be systematic effects of motion on measures of brain morphometry. In the present study, the subjects' tendency to move during fMRI scans, acquired in the same scanning sessions as their structural scans, yielded a reliable, continuous estimate of in-scanner motion. Using this approach within a sample of 127 children, adolescents, and young adults, significant relationships were found between this measure and estimates of cortical gray matter volume and mean curvature, as well as trend-level relationships with cortical thickness. Specifically, cortical volume and thickness decreased with greater motion, and mean curvature increased. These effects of subtle motion were anatomically heterogeneous, were present across different automated imaging pipelines, showed convergent validity with effects of frank motion assessed in a separate sample of 274 scans, and could be demonstrated in both pediatric and adult populations. Thus, using different motion assays in two large non-overlapping sets of structural MRI scans, convergent evidence showed that in-scanner motion-even at levels which do not manifest in visible motion artifact-can lead to systematic and regionally specific biases in anatomical estimation. These findings have special relevance to structural neuroimaging in developmental and clinical datasets, and inform ongoing efforts to optimize neuroanatomical analysis of existing and future structural MRI datasets in non-sedated humans. Hum Brain Mapp 37:2385-2397, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.23180

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Motion in the scanner can significantly influence measures of cortical thickness and surface area, DTI parameters, and resting-state networks.

    “It is increasingly recognized that motion in the scanner can significantly influence measures of cortical thickness and surface area27, 218, as well as DTI parameters (Box 2)219 and resting-state networks (Box 3)220,219.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexander-Bloch, A., Clasen, L., Stockman, M., Ronan, L., Lalonde, F., Giedd, J., & Raznahan, A.
Affiliations
  • Developmental Neurogenomics Unit; Child Psychiatry Branch; National Institute of Mental Health; Bethesda Maryland
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Raznahan, Armin
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-23
Volume
37
Issue
7
Pages
2385-2397
ISSN
1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2310662295
Cited by
178
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 6
FWCI
17.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (095692/Z/11/Z)
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 MH999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
structural MRI, brain morphometry, cortical gray matter volume, cortical thickness, mean curvature, automated brain segmentation, motion estimation, pediatric neuroimaging, convergent validity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motion, Organ Size, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Artifacts, Young Adult, Gray Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review