Comparison of continuously acquired resting state and extracted analogues from active tasks. Issue 10 (15th July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ganger, Sebastian; Hahn, Andreas; Küblböck, Martin; Kranz, Georg S.; Spies, Marie; Vanicek, Thomas; Seiger, René; Sladky, Ronald; Windischberger, Christian; Kasper, Siegfried; Lanzenberger, Rupert
• Is Part Of: Human brain mapping. Volume 36:Issue 10(2015:Oct.)
• Page Start: 4053
• Page End: 4063
• Publication Date: 2015-07-15
• Subjects: brain network -- resting‐state fMRI -- task regression -- task‐derived resting state; Brain mapping -- Periodicals; 611.81
• DOI: 10.1002/hbm.22897
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1065-9471

Abstract

Abstract: Functional connectivity analysis of brain networks has become an important tool for investigation of human brain function. Although functional connectivity computations are usually based on resting‐state data, the application to task‐specific fMRI has received growing attention. Three major methods for extraction of resting‐state data from task‐related signal have been proposed (1) usage of unmanipulated task data for functional connectivity; (2) regression against task effects, subsequently using the residuals; and (3) concatenation of baseline blocks located in‐between task blocks. Despite widespread application in current research, consensus on which method best resembles resting‐state seems to be missing. We, therefore, evaluated these techniques in a sample of 26 healthy controls measured at 7 Tesla. In addition to continuous resting‐state, two different task paradigms were assessed (emotion discrimination and right finger‐tapping) and five well‐described networks were analyzed (default mode, thalamus, cuneus, sensorimotor, and auditory). Investigating the similarity to continuous resting‐state (Dice, Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), R 2 ) showed that regression against task effects yields functional connectivity networks most alike to resting‐state. However, all methods exhibited significant differences when compared to continuous resting‐state and similarity metrics were lower than test‐retest of two resting‐state scans. Omitting global signal regression did not change these findings. Visually, the networks are highly similar, but through further investigation marked differences can be found. Therefore, our data does not support referring to resting‐state when extracting signals from task designs, although functional connectivity computed from task‐specific data may indeed yield interesting information. Hum Brain Mapp 36:4053–4063, 2015 . © 2015 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.