The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Visual inspection of independent components: Defining a procedure for artifact removal from fMRI data
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E. J., Johansen-Berg, H., Bannister, P. R., De Luca, M., Drobnjak, I., Flitney, D. E., et al. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 · Cited by 13,630
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
Fast robust automated brain extraction
Smith, S. M. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.10062 · Cited by 10,496
The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 · Cited by 8,553
The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-11-04302.1997 · Cited by 7,738
Zhang, Y., Brady, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.906424 · Cited by 7,628
Fast and robust fixed-point algorithms for independent component analysis
Hyvärinen, A. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/72.761722 · Cited by 6,304
(2005) · Cited by 5,977
Movement‐Related effects in fMRI time‐series
Friston, K. J., Williams, S., Howard, R., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Turner, R. (1996) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1910350312 · Cited by 3,774
Greicius, M. D., Srivastava, G., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0308627101 · Cited by 3,684
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ICA-AROMA: A robust ICA-based strategy for removing motion artifacts from fMRI data
Pruim, R. H. R., Mennes, M., van Rooij, D., Llera, A., Buitelaar, J. K., & Beckmann, C. F. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.064 · Cited by 1,684
Zeng, L.-L., Shen, H., Liu, L., Wang, L., Li, B., Fang, P., Zhou, Z., Li, Y., & Hu, D. (2012) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/aws059 · Cited by 748
Building a Science of Individual Differences from fMRI
Dubois, J., & Adolphs, R. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.014 · Cited by 644
Hand classification of fMRI ICA noise components
Griffanti, L., Douaud, G., Bijsterbosch, J. D., Evangelisti, S., Alfaro‐Almagro, F., Glasser, M. F., Duff, E. P., Fitzgibbon, S. P., Westphal, R., Carone, D., et al. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.036 · Cited by 577
Methods for cleaning the BOLD fMRI signal
Caballero-Gaudes, C., & Reynolds, R. C. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.018 · Cited by 542
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 189
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-245
- ISSN
- 0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3299198
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
