Cited by 154Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Experimental designs and processing strategies for fMRI studies involving overt verbal responses

Birn, Rasmus M., Cox, Robert W., Bandettini, Peter A.·2004·NeuroImage

Abstract

Event-related paradigms have been used increasingly in the past few years for the localization of function in tasks involving overt speech. These designs exploit the differences in the temporal characteristics between the rapid motion-induced and the slower hemodynamic signal changes. The optimization of these designs and the best way to analyze the acquired data has not yet been fully explored. The purpose of this study is to investigate various design and analysis strategies for maximizing the detection of function while minimizing task-induced motion artifacts. Both event-related and blocked paradigms can be specifically designed to meet these goals. Various event-related and blocked designs were compared both in simulation and in experiments involving overt word reading in their ability to detect function and to avoid speech-induced motion artifact. A blocked design with task and control durations of 10 s and an event-related design with a minimum stimulus duration (SD) of 5 s and an average interstimulus interval (ISI) of 10 s were found to optimally detect blood oxygenation level-dependent signal changes without significant motion artifact. Ignoring images acquired during the speech can help recover function in areas particularly affected by motion but substantially reduces the detection power in other regions. Using the stimulus timing as an additional regressor to model the motion offers little benefit in practice due to the variability of the motion-induced signal change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.039

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Birn, R. M., Cox, R. W., & Bandettini, P. A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Birn, Rasmus M.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-11
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
1046-1058
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143203400
Cited by
154
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
overt speech, motion artifacts, blocked designs, stimulus timing, BOLD signal, word reading, hemodynamic response, motion correction, stimulus duration, interstimulus interval
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Evoked Potentials, False Negative Reactions, Hemodynamics, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Motion, Oxygen, Reading, Research Design, Speech, Verbal Behavior, Artifacts, Echo-Planar Imaging

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