title: Development, validation, and comparison of ICA-based gradient artifact reduction algorithms for simultaneous EEG-spiral in/out and echo-planar fMRI recordings.
abstract: EEG data acquired in an MRI scanner are heavily contaminated by gradient artifacts that can significantly compromise signal quality. We developed two new methods based on independent component analysis (ICA) for reducing gradient artifacts from spiral in-out and echo-planar pulse sequences at 3 T, and compared our algorithms with four other commonly used methods: average artifact subtraction (Allen, P., Josephs, O., Turner, R., 2000. A method for removing imaging artifact from continuous EEG recorded during functional MRI. NeuroImage 12, 230-239.), principal component analysis (Niazy, R., Beckmann, C., Iannetti, G., Brady, J., Smith, S., 2005. Removal of FMRI environment artifacts from EEG data using optimal basis sets. NeuroImage 28, 720-737.), Taylor series ( Wan, X., Iwata, K., Riera, J., Kitamura, M., Kawashima, R., 2006. Artifact reduction for simultaneous EEG/fMRI recording: adaptive FIR reduction of imaging artifacts. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 681-692.) and a conventional temporal ICA algorithm. Models of gradient artifacts were derived from simulations as well as a water phantom and performance of each method was evaluated on datasets constructed using visual event-related potentials (ERPs) as well as resting EEG. Our new methods recovered ERPs and resting EEG below the beta band (<12.5 Hz) with high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR>4). Our algorithms outperformed all of these methods on resting EEG in the theta and alpha bands (SNR>4); however, for all methods, signal recovery was modest (SNR approximately 1) in the beta band and poor (SNR<0.3) in the gamma band and above. We found that the conventional ICA algorithm performed poorly with uniformly low SNR (<0.1). Taken together, our new ICA-based methods offer a more robust technique for gradient artifact reduction when scanning at 3 T using spiral in-out and echo-planar pulse sequences. We provide new insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each method using a unified subspace framework.
authors: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5778, USA. sryali@stanford.edu
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Ryali
authors: G H
authors: GH
authors: Glover
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Chang
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Menon
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D016477:Artifacts; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology; D003198:Computer Simulation; D016208:Databases, Factual; D004569:Electroencephalography / Q000379:methods*; D005074:Evoked Potentials, Visual; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D025341:Principal Component Analysis; D012146:Rest; D013997:Time Factors; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology; D014867:Water
chemical_list: D014867:Water