I went back and had a look at this data.  It looks like an ICA+FIX like 
approach was applied, the mean grey matter time course was removed, and it was 
reconstructed from a d=50 ICA.  I am assuming what you like about the dataset 
is the reduction to the 50 highest PCs, which removes the unstructured noise.

If you wish you can e-mail me off list and I can send you a dataset that has 
some of these properties but is processed using my current best approach for 
the purpose of testing your algorithm on it.

As for your overall research goal, how is what you are doing meaningfully 
different than temporal ICA or PFMs?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/8/3131.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811915000208

Peace,

Matt.

From: Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:08 AM
To: Matt Glasser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Elam, Jennifer" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

Hi Matthew,

Thanks a lot for your response, I think I am understanding this a bit more. I 
am currently using an algorithm coming from fluid mechanics called Dynamic Mode 
Decomposition 
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027015003829). The 
algorithm decomposes the dtseries into a sum of spatially oscillating modes. 
When I use the data from MSMAll_hp2000_clean.dtseries.nii, the algorithm is not 
able to decompose the signal. However, the pilot data (and only the pilot data, 
not the ica, normalized, or the raw) seems to decompose and I get spatial modes 
that are similar to functional connectivity networks seen in previous 
literature, as well as a distribution of frequencies that seem to be biological 
plausible. I think most of this is due to DMD being very sensitive, and if its 
off (which I am not quite sure how to define/characterize) the algorithm just 
gives me junk.

Now, I am assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the middle paragraph in your last 
response, is what you used to process the pilot data. The mean centering and 
the normalization makes sense to me, but I am a bit confused on what 
"multiplying the bias field back into the data" refers to. I am confused what 
the bias field is (experimentally). Dividing by the variance definitely throws 
in a lot of noise (due to the fact that neighboring voxels probably should have 
similar std but since we have only limited data they are not).

But I think, I would like to process the raw data ( 
MSMAll_hp2000_clean.dtseries.nii) with this method and see if my algorithm can 
decompose it.  Thanks a lot for your help,

Cheers
Amrit



On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Glasser, Matthew 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Well I processed the pilot data and have said that it is not recommended that 
you use that for analysis.  The recommended starting data is the ICA+FIX 
cleaned data which has been registered with MSMAll and is named something like 
this:

${StudyFolder}/${Subject}/MNINonLinear/Results/${fMRIName}/${fMRIName}_Atlas_MSMAll_hp2000_clean.dtseries.nii

If you are interested in looking at dense timeseries movies or concatenating 
across runs, you will want to remove the mean image from the data.  Next you 
will need to decide whether you want to variance normalize the data (if you do, 
you will want to multiply the bias field back into the data and divide by the 
variance normalization map—these files are included in the same package as the 
above).  Variance normalized data has an equal chance of false positives across 
space, but isn’t interpretable in terms of %BOLD deviation across space.  The 
included bias field correction isn’t quite optimal and we haven’t had a chance 
to create the data that enables a better bias field correction.

It is indeed true that if you reconstruct the data from the signal ICA 
components that a given run has, it will look a lot smoother spatially and 
temporally, because you will have thrown out all of the unstructured noise.  
This might be okay for individual subject analysis, but you wouldn’t want to do 
this for group analysis (because you would not be able to get the benefits of 
cross-subject averaging for bringing out weaker components).  I’ve ended up 
doing something different which we call “Wishart Rolloff” which is described in 
this document:

http://www.humanconnectome.org/documentation/mound-and-moat-effect.html

This makes a bit fewer assumptions than does the ICA-based reconstruction 
approach, and so I have moved away from the ICA-recon approach.  In any case, I 
don’t really understand exactly what you are trying to do with the data…

Peace,

Matt.

From: Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:35 AM
To: Matt Glasser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Elam, Jennifer" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

​
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_10_generic_list.png] 
HCPfilterdNorm.mpg<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21oKdbljNLvaThnSy11anFqQzA/view?usp=drive_web>[X]
​​
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_10_generic_list.png] 
HCPicacleaned.mpg<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21oKdbljNLvOE9ISlVLdGt3cmc/view?usp=drive_web>[X]
​​
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_10_generic_list.png] 
HCPMSALLraw.mpg<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21oKdbljNLveUE1SzNHaFZrQzg/view?usp=drive_web>[X]
​​
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_10_generic_list.png] 
HCPpilot.mpg<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21oKdbljNLvYTlxR1dXbjlXY2M/view?usp=drive_web>[X]
​Hey HCP,

I have downloaded the raw data that you have suggested and I tried many 
techniques unsuccessfully (filtering, smoothing, normalizing, ... etc) to try 
to transform the data into the signal that I have observed in the scene 4 data. 
I have included 4 files below to show the difference between the HCP pilot 
processing vs the raw data and vs my own processing.

I believe that this signal (HCP pilot) is probably closer to the true signal 
that we are interested in, because it seems like the dynamics of the 
spatio-temporal pattern has normalized correctly over the entire brain, 
resulting in a smooth signal that transitions from one region to another. The 
raw signal (MSMAII in this case but ICA+fix is very similar) is not normalized 
across the brain space and shows most of the activity clustered around regions 
that inherently have more activity. Normalizing and filtering results in a 
signal that looks similar to the HCP pilot, but contains large amounts of 
spatial noise that is not seen in the HCP pilot data. I believe that probably 
the HCP pilot has been spatially filtered but I am not sure. I tried projecting 
the data into the 300 ICA components as well, and then reconstructing the 
signal from these components to clean the signal and it results in the fourth 
file which looks interesting but does not have the smooth dynamics seen from 
the pilot data.

I think that someone has done an amazing job in post-processing the HCP pilot 
data and their work is a great interest for the scientific community. The last 
few weeks I have attempted to guess what has been done to the signal and try to 
apply it myself but this is not getting me very far. If you have any 
documentation about the pilot study or the code that generated the processing 
for the HCP pilot data I would be incredibly grateful since I am struggling to 
reproduce its results. For my present work, I am trying to extend the spatial 
functional connectivity maps into a temporal domain. For this I need very 
smooth signals both spatially as well as temporally and the HCP pilot data 
gives me promising results in decomposing the dynamics.

Thanks so much for all the help you have already provided and appologize for 
the long email,
Cheers
Amrit




On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Glasser, Matthew 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

ICA+FIX for all usecases, but otherwise it depends on what you are doing.


Peace,


Matt.

________________________________
From: Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:20:51 AM
To: Glasser, Matthew
Cc: Elam, Jennifer; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

Awesome, thanks a bunch I will try it out. Just out of curiosity what 
preprocessing would you recommend to clean up the signal (filtering, 
interpolation, downsampling)?
Cheers
Amrit

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Glasser, Matthew 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There is a wb_command function that does this, wb_command -cifti-smoothing.  We 
don’t recommend smoothing as a general preprocessing practice however.

Peace,

Matt.

From: Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM
To: "Elam, Jennifer" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Matt Glasser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

Okay, I will use the regular data then and try to process it so that my 
algorithm runs on it. Do you guys know by any chance a good way to project the 
surface data contained in the cifti-files into a flat 2D map given in the flat 
gifti files? (I am trying to get the cifti data into a 2D matrix so I can 
convolve with a Gaussian kernel).

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Elam, Jennifer 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Amrit,

The data in Scene 4 of the WB Tutorial data is almost 5 years old now, CP10101 
is a subject from the pilot phase of the HCP, well before we were releasing 
data and well before we were cleaning the data with FIX. The reason that scene 
is there is simply to display the concept of BOLD fluctuations in an fMRI time 
series-- it is not the really meant to be data that you use any analysis tools 
on since we have since released several improved versions of the fMRI data on 
now over 800 subjects.


The Group Average Workbench dataset available in 
ConnectomeDB<https://db.humanconnectome.org/data/projects/HCP_900> is up to 
date with data from the current 900 Subjects Release (of December 2015)


Yes, there is extensive documentation on the many individual subject and group 
average analyzed data currently available for download in ConnectomeDB in the 
900 Subjects Reference 
Manual<https://www.humanconnectome.org/documentation/S900/HCP_S900_Release_Reference_Manual.pdf>
 (you can also get to it in the Documentation section of the HCP public 
website) and more info in the publication references therein. It's a long 
document, but there's a lot of valuable information there.


Best,

Jenn

Jennifer Elam, Ph.D.
Scientific Outreach, Human Connectome Project
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Neuroscience, Box 8108
660 South Euclid Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
314-362-9387<tel:314-362-9387>
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
www.humanconnectome.org<http://www.humanconnectome.org/>


________________________________
From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
 on behalf of Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:34:48 AM
To: Glasser, Matthew
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

Yes, I am using that because I thought that was the most processed data 
available. I think someone might have spatially smoothed this raw signal and 
then added it to the tutorial data?


On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Glasser, Matthew 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Are you using the FIX cleaned HCP data?  It will have _hp2000_clean in the file 
name.

Peace,

Matt.

From: 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
 on behalf of Amrit Kashyap <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:52 AM
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [HCP-Users] Workbench Tutorial Data

Hey HCP, this might not be the correct place to post this, but I have been 
using the rsfMRI data provided by the HCP workbench tutorial in scene 4 
(CP10101). It looks like there has been some preprocessing done to the rsfMRI 
dtseries but I am not sure what it is. My own analysis techniques seem to work 
pretty well on this processed data but perform pretty poorly on the raw data. 
Is there any documentation/paper you could direct me to?
Thanks
Amrit

_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users

________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.


_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users


________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.


________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.


________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.


________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.

_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users

Reply via email to