» Articles » PMID: 35165974

Reliability of Task-evoked Neural Activation During Face-emotion Paradigms: Effects of Scanner and Psychological Processes

Overview
Journal Hum Brain Mapp
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Neurology
Date 2022 Feb 15
PMID 35165974
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Assessing and improving test-retest reliability is critical to efforts to address concerns about replicability of task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging. The current study uses two statistical approaches to examine how scanner and task-related factors influence reliability of neural response to face-emotion viewing. Forty healthy adult participants completed two face-emotion paradigms at up to three scanning sessions across two scanners of the same build over approximately 2 months. We examined reliability across the main task contrasts using Bayesian linear mixed-effects models performed voxel-wise across the brain. We also used a novel Bayesian hierarchical model across a predefined whole-brain parcellation scheme and subcortical anatomical regions. Scanner differences accounted for minimal variance in temporal signal-to-noise ratio and task contrast maps. Regions activated during task at the group level showed higher reliability relative to regions not activated significantly at the group level. Greater reliability was found for contrasts involving conditions with clearly distinct visual stimuli and associated cognitive demands (e.g., face vs. nonface discrimination) compared to conditions with more similar demands (e.g., angry vs. happy face discrimination). Voxel-wise reliability estimates tended to be higher than those based on predefined anatomical regions. This work informs attempts to improve reliability in the context of task activation patterns and specific task contrasts. Our study provides a new method to estimate reliability across a large number of regions of interest and can inform researchers' selection of task conditions and analytic contrasts.

Citing Articles

The Relations Among Anxiety, Movie-Watching, and in-Scanner Motion.

Kirk P, Qamar P, Zugman A, Abend R, Frank S, Ringlein G Hum Brain Mapp. 2025; 46(4):e70163.

PMID: 40042099 PMC: 11880912. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.70163.


Development of Neural Mechanisms Underlying Threat Processing: Associations With Childhood Social Reticence and Adolescent Anxiety.

Harrewijn A, Ruiz S, Abend R, Haller S, Subar A, Swetlitz C Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci. 2023; 3(4):893-901.

PMID: 37881548 PMC: 10593903. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2023.01.008.


Understanding anxiety symptoms as aberrant defensive responding along the threat imminence continuum.

Abend R Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023; 152:105305.

PMID: 37414377 PMC: 10528507. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105305.


Age-related change in task-evoked amygdala-prefrontal circuitry: A multiverse approach with an accelerated longitudinal cohort aged 4-22 years.

Bloom P, VanTieghem M, Gabard-Durnam L, Gee D, Flannery J, Caldera C Hum Brain Mapp. 2022; 43(10):3221-3244.

PMID: 35393752 PMC: 9188973. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25847.


Reliability of task-evoked neural activation during face-emotion paradigms: Effects of scanner and psychological processes.

Haller S, Chen G, Kitt E, Smith A, Stoddard J, Abend R Hum Brain Mapp. 2022; 43(7):2109-2120.

PMID: 35165974 PMC: 8996353. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25723.

References
1.
van den Bulk B, Koolschijn P, Meens P, van Lang N, Van der Wee N, Rombouts S . How stable is activation in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex in adolescence? A study of emotional face processing across three measurements. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2012; 4:65-76. PMC: 6987697. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.005. View

2.
Sauder C, Hajcak G, Angstadt M, Phan K . Test-retest reliability of amygdala response to emotional faces. Psychophysiology. 2013; 50(11):1147-56. PMC: 3827856. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12129. View

3.
Gountouna V, Job D, McIntosh A, Moorhead T, Lymer G, Whalley H . Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) reproducibility and variance components across visits and scanning sites with a finger tapping task. Neuroimage. 2009; 49(1):552-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.026. View

4.
Cooper S, Jackson J, Barch D, Braver T . Neuroimaging of individual differences: A latent variable modeling perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019; 98:29-46. PMC: 6980382. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.022. View

5.
Chen G, Pine D, Brotman M, Smith A, Cox R, Taylor P . Hyperbolic trade-off: The importance of balancing trial and subject sample sizes in neuroimaging. Neuroimage. 2021; 247:118786. PMC: 9636536. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118786. View