Cited by 345Blind Source Separation TechniquesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Visual inspection of independent components: defining a procedure for artifact removal from fMRI data

Open access
Kelly, Robert E., Alexopoulos, George S., Wang, Zhishun, Gunning, Faith M., Murphy, Christopher F., Morimoto, Sarah Shizuko, Kanellopoulos, Dora, Jia, Zhiru +2 more·2010·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

Artifacts in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, primarily those related to motion and physiological sources, negatively impact the functional signal-to-noise ratio in fMRI studies, even after conventional fMRI preprocessing. Independent component analysis' demonstrated capacity to separate sources of neural signal, structured noise, and random noise into separate components might be utilized in improved procedures to remove artifacts from fMRI data. Such procedures require a method for labeling independent components (ICs) as representing artifacts to be removed or neural signals of interest to be spared. Visual inspection is often considered an accurate method for such labeling as well as a standard to which automated labeling methods are compared. However, detailed descriptions of methods for visual inspection of ICs are lacking in the literature. Here we describe the details of, and the rationale for, an operationalized fMRI data denoising procedure that involves visual inspection of ICs (96% inter-rater agreement). We estimate that dozens of subjects/sessions can be processed within a few hours using the described method of visual inspection. Our hope is that continued scientific discussion of and testing of visual inspection methods will lead to the development of improved, cost-effective fMRI denoising procedures.

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 · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.03.028

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Two raters blind to induction independently inspected the spatial patterns and timecourses of the 26 extracted components and determined that 24 were nonartifactual, with 100% inter-rater agreement.

    “Two raters blind to induction visually inspected the spatial patterns and timecourses of the 26 extracted components independently (see Kelly et al. 2010) and determined that 24 of the 26 components were nonartifactual (inter-rater agreement was 100% on which components were nonartifact and artifact).”

    From Neural Mechanisms of Episodic Retrieval Support Divergent Creative Thinking (2019) · cites this paper as Kelly et al. 2010

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
Kelly, R. E., Alexopoulos, G. S., Wang, Z., Gunning, F. M., Murphy, C. F., Morimoto, S. S., Kanellopoulos, D., Jia, Z., Lim, K. O., & Hoptman, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Kelly, Robert E.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
189
Issue
2
Pages
233-245
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067963436
Cited by
345
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 12
FWCI
20.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH067702, P30MH085943, R01MH065653, T32MH019132, K23MH074818)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Blind Source Separation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
independent component analysis, visual inspection, fMRI denoising, motion artifacts, physiological noise, interobserver agreement, connected component labeling, signal-to-noise ratio
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mental Processes, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Rest, Time Factors, Visual Perception, Observer Variation, Artifacts, Databases as Topic

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