Cited by 3,748Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI

Open access
Power, Jonathan D., Mitra, Anish, Laumann, Timothy O., Snyder, Abraham Z., Schlaggar, Bradley L., Petersen, Steven E.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Head motion systematically alters correlations in resting state functional connectivity fMRI (RSFC). In this report we examine impact of motion on signal intensity and RSFC correlations. We find that motion-induced signal changes (1) are often complex and variable waveforms, (2) are often shared across nearly all brain voxels, and (3) often persist more than 10s after motion ceases. These signal changes, both during and after motion, increase observed RSFC correlations in a distance-dependent manner. Motion-related signal changes are not removed by a variety of motion-based regressors, but are effectively reduced by global signal regression. We link several measures of data quality to motion, changes in signal intensity, and changes in RSFC correlations. We demonstrate that improvements in data quality measures during processing may represent cosmetic improvements rather than true correction of the data. We demonstrate a within-subject, censoring-based artifact removal strategy based on volume censoring that reduces group differences due to motion to chance levels. We note conditions under which group-level regressions do and do not correct motion-related effects.

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.2013.08.048

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • DVAR values vary across datasets for various reasons, which effectively removes the need for a standard threshold.

    “DVAR values, which are based in BOLD signal intensity, differ across datasets for a variety of reasons (e.g. blurring kernel size, frequency filter or data acquisition characteristics) (Power et al., 2014), effectively eliminating the need for a standard threshold.”
  • The study tested the robustness of its findings by adjusting functional connectivity processing steps and using a different motion-censoring method in a supplementary analysis.

    “we tested the robustness of our findings by adjusting the functional connectivity processing steps and employing a different method of motion censoring in a supplementary analysis (see Supplementary Methods), as suggested by prior reports (Hallquist et al., 2013, Power et al., 2014).”
  • The main analysis did not scrub data, but results from scrubbed data showed strong correspondence with the main outcome measures.

    “Due to concerns associated with the alteration of the temporal structure of the images, the data used in the main analysis were not ‘scrubbed’ (Power et al., 2014), however we did compare the results of our experiment with scrubbed data (missing values corrected using interpolation) and found strong correspondence between the outcome measures of the two studies (see Validation).”
  • Additional motion correction in the form of censoring was applied to compensate for using fairly lenient translation and rotation cut-offs.

    “Following standard Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM12; https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm12 ) pre-processing steps, additional motion correction was applied in the form of censoring, i.e. identifying outliers based on framewise displacement and regressing them from the fMRI timeseries ( Power et al., 2012 , Power et al., 2014 ) (see Supplementary Methods), to compensate for using fairly lenient”

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
Power, J. D., Mitra, A., Laumann, T. O., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Power, Jonathan D.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
84
Pages
320-341
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973776237
Cited by
3,748
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 347 · 2025: 458 · 2024: 444 · 2023: 367 · 2022: 368 · 2021: 374 · 2020: 328 · 2019: 284 · 2018: 249 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 160 · 2015: 114 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 5
FWCI
61.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (F30 MH940322, R21NS061144, 5R01 HD057076-03-S1, R01HD057076, U54MH091657, P30 NS048056)
  • McDonnell Foundation Collaborative Action Award
  • Simons Foundation Award (95177)
  • Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center (NIH/NICHD P30 HD062171)
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
head movement, motion artifacts, resting-state functional connectivity, global signal regression, motion correction, signal intensity changes, data quality metrics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motion, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Rest, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Head Movements, Young Adult

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