BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The connectivity across brain regions can be evaluated through fMRI either by using ICA or by means of correlation analysis of time courses measured in predefined ROIs. The purpose of this study was to investigate quantitatively the correspondence between the connectivity information provided by the 2 techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, resting-state fMRI data from 40 healthy participants were independently analyzed by using spatial ICA and ROI-based analysis. To assess the correspondence between the results provided by the 2 methods, for all combinations of ROIs, we compared the time course correlation coefficient with the corresponding "ICA coactivation index." RESULTS: A strongly significant correspondence of moderate intensity was found for 20 ICA components (r = 0.44, P < .001). Repeating the analysis with 10, 15, 25, 30, 35, and 40 components, we found that the correlation remained but was weaker (r = 0.35-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant but not complete correspondence between the results provided by ICA and ROI-based analysis of resting-state data.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The connectivity across brain regions can be evaluated through fMRI either by using ICA or by means of correlation analysis of time courses measured in predefined ROIs. The purpose of this study was to investigate quantitatively the correspondence between the connectivity information provided by the 2 techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, resting-state fMRI data from 40 healthy participants were independently analyzed by using spatial ICA and ROI-based analysis. To assess the correspondence between the results provided by the 2 methods, for all combinations of ROIs, we compared the time course correlation coefficient with the corresponding "ICA coactivation index." RESULTS: A strongly significant correspondence of moderate intensity was found for 20 ICA components (r = 0.44, P < .001). Repeating the analysis with 10, 15, 25, 30, 35, and 40 components, we found that the correlation remained but was weaker (r = 0.35-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant but not complete correspondence between the results provided by ICA and ROI-based analysis of resting-state data.
Authors: N Tzourio-Mazoyer; B Landeau; D Papathanassiou; F Crivello; O Etard; N Delcroix; B Mazoyer; M Joliot Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael D Fox; Abraham Z Snyder; Justin L Vincent; Maurizio Corbetta; David C Van Essen; Marcus E Raichle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Christian F Beckmann; Marilena DeLuca; Joseph T Devlin; Stephen M Smith Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2005-05-29 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: M Hauf; K Jann; K Schindler; O Scheidegger; K Meyer; C Rummel; L Mariani; T Koenig; R Wiest Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Deprez; Michiel B de Ruiter; S Bogaert; R Peeters; J Belderbos; D De Ruysscher; S Schagen; S Sunaert; P Pullens; E Achten Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jason R Tregellas; Jason Smucny; Josette G Harris; Ann Olincy; Keeran Maharajh; Eugene Kronberg; Lindsay C Eichman; Emma Lyons; Robert Freedman Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Yunjie Tong; Lia M Hocke; Lisa D Nickerson; Stephanie C Licata; Kimberly P Lindsey; Blaise deB Frederick Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Yanmei Tie; Laura Rigolo; Isaiah H Norton; Raymond Y Huang; Wentao Wu; Daniel Orringer; Srinivasan Mukundan; Alexandra J Golby Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 5.038