Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 615

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differentiating BOLD and non-BOLD signals in fMRI time series using multi-echo EPI

Open access
Kundu, Prantik, Inati, Souheil J., Evans, Jennifer W., Luh, Wen-Ming, Bandettini, Peter A.·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

A central challenge in the fMRI based study of functional connectivity is distinguishing neuronally related signal fluctuations from the effects of motion, physiology, and other nuisance sources. Conventional techniques for removing nuisance effects include modeling of noise time courses based on external measurements followed by temporal filtering. These techniques have limited effectiveness. Previous studies have shown using multi-echo fMRI that neuronally related fluctuations are Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) signals that can be characterized in terms of changes in R2* and initial signal intensity (S0) based on the analysis of echo-time (TE) dependence. We hypothesized that if TE-dependence could be used to differentiate BOLD and non-BOLD signals, non-BOLD signal could be removed to denoise data without conventional noise modeling. To test this hypothesis, whole brain multi-echo data were acquired at 3 TEs and decomposed with Independent Components Analysis (ICA) after spatially concatenating data across space and TE. Components were analyzed for the degree to which their signal changes fit models for R2* and S0 change, and summary scores were developed to characterize each component as BOLD-like or not BOLD-like. These scores clearly differentiated BOLD-like “functional network” components from non BOLD-like components related to motion, pulsatility, and other nuisance effects. Using non BOLD-like component time courses as noise regressors dramatically improved seed-based correlation mapping by reducing the effects of high and low frequency non-BOLD fluctuations. A comparison with seed-based correlation mapping using conventional noise regressors demonstrated the superiority of the proposed technique for both individual and group level seed-based connectivity analysis, especially in mapping subcortical-cortical connectivity. The differentiation of BOLD and non-BOLD components based on TE-dependence was highly robust, which allowed for the identification of BOLD-like components and the removal of non BOLD-like components to be implemented as a fully automated procedure.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.028

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 615

Metadata

Authors
Kundu, P., Inati, S. J., Evans, J. W., Luh, W.-M., & Bandettini, P. A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
1759-1770
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068782491
Cited by
615
References
43
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differentiating BOLD and non-BOLD signals in fMRI time series using multi-echo EPI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.028
The paper
Kundu, P., Inati, S. J., Evans, J. W., Luh, W.-M., & Bandettini, P. A. (2012). Differentiating BOLD and non-BOLD signals in fMRI time series using multi-echo EPI. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.028

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.