Psychologists uncover brain-imaging inaccuracies

March 8, 2013, Stanford University
The researchers found that traditional methods of processing fMRI data may lead scientists to overlook smaller brain structures, thus skewing their results. Credit: L.A. Cicero

(Medical Xpress)—Traditional methods of fMRI analysis systematically skew which regions of the brain appear to be activating, potentially invalidating hundreds of papers that use the technique.

Pictures of "activating" are by now a familiar accompaniment to any neurological news story. With functional , or fMRI, you can see specific regions light up, standing out against the background like night owls' apartment windows.

It's easy to forget that these aren't real snapshots of . Instead, each picture is the result of many layers of analysis and interpretation, far removed from raw data.

"It's just one representation of brain activity," said Matthew Sacchet, a PhD student in the Neurosciences Program at the Stanford School of Medicine. "As you process the data, it can change."

Sacchet works in the lab of Stanford psychology Associate Professor Brian Knutson, who studies reward processing in a small area of the brain known as the nucleus accumbens. Precisely how that structure activates is at the heart of an ongoing debate about reward circuits – a subject that holds relevance for our understanding of everything from addiction to financial risk-taking.

Unfortunately, according to a paper from Knutson and Sacchet, hundreds of research papers on this circuit may be unintentionally biased. When the labs processed their fMRI findings, many used a one-size-fits-all strategy that skewed which regions of the brain appeared to be activating.

"I honestly think most people want good data," said Knutson. "I'm excited that we can make this kind of research more rigorous.

The paper appeared in the journal NeuroImage.

Too much smoothing

measures changes in in the brain. It's a powerful tool, but the signal fMRI actually detects – the result of the magnetic differences between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood – is noisy.

Researchers need to statistically process the data in order to make the resulting data interpretable. One of the most common approaches is known as "spatial smoothing," which involves averaging the activity of each brain region with that of its neighbors.

But fMRI has only been in use since the mid-1990s. Many of the most common analyses in use today are holdovers from older, lower-resolution types of imaging and seem to have some undesired effects on the finer-grained signals fMRI can provide.

Knutson and Sacchet found that when researchers process fMRI data with a traditional "smoothing kernel" of 8mm, they end up averaging their images over too large an area. Activity in smaller brain structures can then be overlooked, or even shifted to areas that receive more blood flow and where the blood oxygenation level-dependent signal is stronger.

"It might seem strange that a systematic bias like that could bias the whole field," Knutson said. "But if half the people use 8mm and half use 4mm, you might end up with very different results, and it could add up."

Reward structure

These statistical pitfalls are particularly glaring when studying the small, structurally complex nucleus accumbens.

Findings from the Knutson Lab, which has been using the smaller, 4mm smoothing kernel for years, suggest that different parts of the nucleus accumbens have different functions. The forward portion seems to distinguish between positive or negative stimuli, reacting specifically to rewards. Meanwhile, the rear section responds more to the intensity of the motivation.

While some other labs have corroborated this finding, others only found activation in the rear half of the structure.

These contradictory findings now appear to have been skewed. Because the back of the nucleus accumbens is larger and surrounded by more blood-infused gray matter than the front, the smoothing step made it appear as if all the ' activity originated far to the rear.

A collaborator in Germany already has taken the paper's advice, Sacchet said. "She had a colleague reanalyze her data and found the same thing we found."

Knutson emphasized that the research paper doesn't mean "the methods are bunk." Simply improving the way scientists process signals can enhance their ability to locate specific brain functions.

"There may be a debate, but you can resolve that debate with data," he said.

Explore further: In the brain, winning is everywhere

More information: Article: Spatial Smoothing Systematically Biases the Localization of Reward-Related Brain Activity, NeuroImage (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.056)

Related Stories

In the brain, winning is everywhere

October 5, 2011
Winning may not be the only thing, but the human brain devotes a lot of resources to the outcome of games, a new study by Yale researchers suggest.

Scanning the brain: Scientists examine the impact of fMRI over the past 20 years

January 16, 2013
Understanding the human brain is one of the greatest scientific quests of all time, but the available methods have been very limited until recently. The development of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—a tool ...

Study links hippocampus with unconscious bias

October 12, 2012
(Medical Xpress)—A new US study into brain function has found links between preferences and the regions of the brain involved in connecting new memories to old ones. The associations formed provide shortcuts the subconscious ...

Recommended for you

Research reveals atomic-level changes in ALS-linked protein

January 18, 2018
For the first time, researchers have described atom-by-atom changes in a family of proteins linked to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a group of brain disorders known as frontotemporal dementia and degenerative diseases ...

Fragile X finding shows normal neurons that interact poorly

January 18, 2018
Neurons in mice afflicted with the genetic defect that causes Fragile X syndrome (FXS) appear similar to those in healthy mice, but these neurons fail to interact normally, resulting in the long-known cognitive impairments, ...

How your brain remembers what you had for dinner last night

January 17, 2018
Confirming earlier computational models, researchers at University of California San Diego and UC San Diego School of Medicine, with colleagues in Arizona and Louisiana, report that episodic memories are encoded in the hippocampus ...

Recording a thought's fleeting trip through the brain

January 17, 2018
University of California, Berkeley neuroscientists have tracked the progress of a thought through the brain, showing clearly how the prefrontal cortex at the front of the brain coordinates activity to help us act in response ...

Midbrain 'start neurons' control whether we walk or run

January 17, 2018
Locomotion comprises the most fundamental movements we perform. It is a complex sequence from initiating the first step, to stopping when we reach our goal. At the same time, locomotion is executed at different speeds to ...

A 'touching sight': How babies' brains process touch builds foundations for learning

January 16, 2018
Touch is the first of the five senses to develop, yet scientists know far less about the baby's brain response to touch than to, say, the sight of mom's face, or the sound of her voice.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
It's good to be reminded from time to time that a model is only a model, the map is not the territory, and that the scriptures are never the literal word of God.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.