Comprehensive integration of structural and functional connectivity data is required to model brain functions accurately. While resources for studying the structural connectivity of non-human primate brains already exist, their integration with functional connectivity data has remained unavailable. Here we present a comprehensive resource that integrates the most extensive awake marmoset resting-state fMRI data available to date (39 marmoset monkeys, 710 runs, 12117 mins) with previously published cellular-level neuronal tracing data (52 marmoset monkeys, 143 injections) and multi-resolution diffusion MRI datasets. The combination of these data allowed us to (1) map the fine-detailed functional brain networks and cortical parcellations, (2) develop a deep-learning-based parcellation generator that preserves the topographical organization of functional connectivity and reflects individual variabilities, and (3) investigate the structural basis underlying functional connectivity by computational modeling. This resource will enable modeling structure-function relationships and facilitate future comparative and translational studies of primate brains.
Knowing the difference between left and right is generally assumed throughout the brain MRI research community. However, we note widespread occurrences of left-right orientation errors in MRI open database repositories where volumes have contained systematic left-right flips between subject EPIs and anatomicals, due to having incorrect or missing file header information. Here we present a simple method in AFNI for determining the consistency of left and right within a pair of acquired volumes for a particular subject; the presence of EPI-anatomical inconsistency, for example, is a sign that dataset header information likely requires correction. The method contains both a quantitative evaluation as well as a visualizable verification. We test the functionality using publicly available datasets. Left-right flipping is not immediately obvious in most cases, so we also present visualization methods for looking at this problem (and other potential problems), using examples from both FMRI and DTI datasets.
Quality control (QC) is a necessary, but often an under-appreciated, part of FMRI processing. Here we describe procedures for performing QC on acquired or publicly available FMRI datasets using the widely used AFNI software package. This work is part of the Research Topic, “Demonstrating Quality Control (QC) Procedures in fMRI.” We used a sequential, hierarchical approach that contained the following major stages: (1) GTKYD (getting to know your data, esp. its basic acquisition properties), (2) APQUANT (examining quantifiable measures, with thresholds), (3) APQUAL (viewing qualitative images, graphs, and other information in systematic HTML reports) and (4) GUI (checking features interactively with a graphical user interface); and for task data, and (5) STIM (checking stimulus event timing statistics). We describe how these are complementary and reinforce each other to help researchers stay close to their data. We processed and evaluated the provided, publicly available resting state data collections (7 groups, 139 total subjects) and task-based data collection (1 group, 30 subjects). As specified within the Topic guidelines, each subject’s dataset was placed into one of three categories: Include, exclude or uncertain. The main focus of this paper, however, is the detailed description of QC procedures: How to understand the contents of an FMRI dataset, to check its contents for appropriateness, to verify processing steps, and to examine potential quality issues. Scripts for the processing and analysis are freely available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.