The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of Task-Correlated Physiological Fluctuations and Motion in 2D and 3D Echo-Planar Imaging in a Higher Cognitive Level fMRI Paradigm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2016.00225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jarle Ladstein, Hallvard R. Evensmoen, Asta K. Håberg, Anders Kristoffersen, Pål E. Goa |
| Abstract |
To compare 2D and 3D echo-planar imaging (EPI) in a higher cognitive level fMRI paradigm. In particular, to study the link between the presence of task-correlated physiological fluctuations and motion and the fMRI contrast estimates from either 2D EPI or 3D EPI datasets, with and without adding nuisance regressors to the model. A signal model in the presence of partly task-correlated fluctuations is derived, and predictions for contrast estimates with and without nuisance regressors are made. Thirty-one healthy volunteers were scanned using 2D EPI and 3D EPI during a virtual environmental learning paradigm. In a subgroup of 7 subjects, heart rate and respiration were logged, and the correlation with the paradigm was evaluated. FMRI analysis was performed using models with and without nuisance regressors. Differences in the mean contrast estimates were investigated by analysis-of-variance using Subject, Sequence, Day, and Run as factors. The distributions of group level contrast estimates were compared. Partially task-correlated fluctuations in respiration, heart rate and motion were observed. Statistically significant differences were found in the mean contrast estimates between the 2D EPI and 3D EPI when using a model without nuisance regressors. The inclusion of nuisance regressors for cardiorespiratory effects and motion reduced the difference to a statistically non-significant level. Furthermore, the contrast estimate values shifted more when including nuisance regressors for 3D EPI compared to 2D EPI. The results are consistent with 3D EPI having a higher sensitivity to fluctuations compared to 2D EPI. In the presence partially task-correlated physiological fluctuations or motion, proper correction is necessary to get expectation correct contrast estimates when using 3D EPI. As such task-correlated physiological fluctuations or motion is difficult to avoid in paradigms exploring higher cognitive functions, 2D EPI seems to be the preferred choice for higher cognitive level fMRI paradigms. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 28% |
| Researcher | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 9 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,134
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,436
of 355,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#168
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.