Spatially independent activity patterns in functional MRI data during the Stroop color-naming task

1. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 1

   Different classes of components detected by ICA decomposition of Stroop task fMRI data. (red, z ≥ 2.0; blue, z ≤ 2.0). Negative z values mean those voxels are activated opposite to the plotted time course. (a) Consistently task-related (CTR) component. (b) Transiently task-related (TTR) component. The dotted line shows the time course of the consistently task-related component for comparison. (c) Slowly varying, non-task-related component. The active region for this component was mostly localized to the ventricular system. The lower line shows the mean time course of the active voxels for this component. (d) Quasi-periodic component. This component was largely active in a single slice and had a dominant period of about 12 sec. The spatial distributions of such components were highly reproducible between trials. (e) Suspected abrupt head movement. Note abrupt change in time course, suggesting an abrupt head movement. (f) Component with a “ring-like” spatial structure is suggestive of a head movement.

   
   
2. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 2

   Comparison of three linear models for analyzing fMRI data. PCA and two versions of ICA were used to linearly separate the data into partially spatially independent maps. The most consistently task-related component determined by each of the three methods from the first trial are shown, along with the correlation coefficient between the associated time courses and the reference function for the behavioral experiment. The ICA algorithm components resembled the task reference function much more strongly than the most highly correlated PCA components.

   
   
3. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 3

   ICA separated one CTR component for each of the two trials. The right column superimposes the four control/task blocks in each trial on the linearly detrended CTR component. The mean of all eight component activations is shown at the bottom of the right column, superimposed on one cycle of the expected task reference function.

   
   
4. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 4

   Examples of activations TTR to the task block design. The CTR component is shown with a dotted line. Bolded portions indicate time periods when TTR activations appear task-related.

   
   
5. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 5

   A scatter plot comparing the map voxel values of a suspected artifact (head movement) component before and after removal of the CTR component. Map voxel values are scaled to z-scores. Note the reproducibility of map voxel values for both the highly active and less-active voxels in each map. Voxel values before CTR removal are shown on the abscissa.

   
   
6. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 6

   (a) A marked effect on a TTR component of removing the CTR component. The CTR component for trial 1 (Upper) had areas of activation in predominately posterior regions. The same ICA decomposition revealed TTR activation during the second experimental block (blue rectangle) whose map voxel distribution was constrained by the algorithm to be independent to the CTR component (Lower Left). Application of ICA after the removal of the CTR component (by Eqs. 11–18) again revealed a TTR component with strong mesial frontal activation (Lower Right). (b) Scatter plot showing the effects of removal of the CTR component on a TTR component. Here, CTR-component removal had a significant effect on the map voxel values, in contrast to Fig. 5. Yellow voxels denote activation with the time course shown, and blue voxels denote suppression with the same time course.

   
   
7. 

   View larger version:

   • In this window
   • In a new window

   • Download as PowerPoint Slide

   Figure 7

   Simulation depicting the effects of removal of an ICA component on subsequent ICA decomposition. (a) Three simulated activations with different spatial distributions were added to the data set from the first trial. Two of the simulated distributions were highly overlapping for all but the most highly active voxels in anterior and posterior regions (illustrated voxels). The simulated parietal distribution was independent from the other two distributions. (b) After spatial ICA decomposition, the spatial component voxel values for three of the ICA components correlated 0.92, 0.54, and 0.99, respectively, with the distributions of the simulated activations. (c) Removal of the CTR component and reanalysis by ICA resulted in a more accurate separation (r = 0.97) of the least-well-separated distribution (frontal). The separated parietal distribution was largely unaffected by CTR removal (r = 0.99).