It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Given the recent controversies in some neuroimaging statistical methods, we compare the most frequently used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) analysis packages: AFNI, FSL and SPM, with regard to temporal autocorrelation modeling. This process, sometimes known as pre-whitening, is conducted in virtually all task fMRI studies. Here, we employ eleven datasets containing 980 scans corresponding to different fMRI protocols and subject populations. We found that autocorrelation modeling in AFNI, although imperfect, performed much better than the autocorrelation modeling of FSL and SPM. The presence of residual autocorrelated noise in FSL and SPM leads to heavily confounded first level results, particularly for low-frequency experimental designs. SPM’s alternative pre-whitening method, FAST, performed better than SPM’s default. The reliability of task fMRI studies could be improved with more accurate autocorrelation modeling. We recommend that fMRI analysis packages provide diagnostic plots to make users aware of any pre-whitening problems.
There has been recent controversy over the validity of commonly-used software packages for functional MRI (fMRI) data analysis. Here, the authors compare the performance of three leading packages (AFNI, FSL, SPM) in terms of temporal autocorrelation modeling, a key statistical step in fMRI analysis.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 University of Cambridge, Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934); University of Lausanne, Laboratory of Research in Neuroimaging (LREN), Department of Clinical Neurosciences, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland (GRID:grid.9851.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2165 4204)
2 University of Cambridge, Statistical Laboratory, Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934)
3 University of Cambridge, Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000000121885934)