Cited by 100Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Group analysis in functional neuroimaging: selecting subjects using similarity measures

Open access
Kherif, F·2003·NeuroImage

Abstract

Standard group analyses of fMRI data rely on spatial and temporal averaging of individuals. This averaging operation is only sensible when the mean is a good representation of the group. This is not the case if subjects are not homogeneous, and it is therefore a major concern in fMRI studies to assess this group homogeneity. We present a method that provides relevant distances or similarity measures between temporal series of brain functional images belonging to different subjects. The method allows a multivariate comparison between data sets of several subjects in the time or in the space domain. These analyses assess the global intersubject variability before averaging subjects and drawing conclusions across subjects, at the population level. We adapt the RV coefficient to measure meaningful spatial or temporal similarities and use multidimensional scaling to give a visual representation of each subject's position with respect to other subjects in the group. We also provide a measure for detecting subjects that may be outliers. Results show that the method is a powerful tool to detect subjects with specific temporal or spatial patterns, and that, despite the apparent loss of information, restricting the analysis to a homogeneous subgroup of subjects does not reduce the statistical sensitivity of standard group fMRI analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.08.018

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kherif, F.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Kherif, F
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-12
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
2197-2208
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024545575
Cited by
100
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • 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
Keywords
group analysis, functional MRI, participant selection, interindividual variability, similarity measures, RV coefficient, multidimensional scaling, outlier detection, spatial and temporal averaging
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Individuality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Nervous System, Population, Psychomotor Performance, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Patient Selection

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