Quantifying Residual Motion Artifacts in Fetal fMRI Data

  • Athena TaymourtashEmail author
  • Ernst Schwartz
  • Karl-Heinz Nenning
  • Daniel Sobotka
  • Mariana Diogo
  • Gregor Kasprian
  • Daniela Prayer
  • Georg Langs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11798)


Fetal functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) has emerged as a powerful tool for investigating brain development in utero, holding promise for generating developmental disease biomarkers and supporting prenatal diagnosis. However, to date its clinical applications have been limited by unpredictable fetal and maternal motion during image acquisition. Even after spatial realignment, these cause spurious signal fluctuations confounding measures of functional connectivity and biasing statistical inference of relationships between connectivity and individual differences. As there is no ground truth for the brain’s functional structure, especially before birth, quantifying the quality of motion correction is challenging. In this paper, we propose evaluating the efficacy of different regression based methods for removing motion artifacts after realignment by assessing the residual relationship of functional connectivity with estimated motion, and with the distance between areas. Results demonstrate the sensitivity of our evaluation’s criteria to reveal the relative strengths and weaknesses among different artifact removal methods, and underscore the need for greater care when dealing with fetal motion.


Fetal fMRI Motion correction Functional connectivity 



This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 765148.


  1. 1.
    Behzadi, Y., Restom, K., Liau, J., Liu, T.T.: A component based noise correction method (CompCor) for BOLD and perfusion based fMRI. NeuroImage 37(1), 90–101 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciric, R., et al.: Benchmarking of participant-level confound regression strategies for the control of motion artifact in studies of functional connectivity. NeuroImage 154, 174–187 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebner, M., et al.: An automated localization, segmentation and reconstruction framework for fetal brain MRI. In: Frangi, A.F., Schnabel, J.A., Davatzikos, C., Alberola-López, C., Fichtinger, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2018. LNCS, vol. 11070, pp. 313–320. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gholipour, A., et al.: A normative spatiotemporal MRI atlas of the fetal brain for automatic segmentation and analysis of early brain growth. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 476 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hindriks, R., et al.: Can sliding-window correlations reveal dynamic functional connectivity in resting-state fMRI? NeuroImage 127, 242–256 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., Smith, S.: Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage 17(2), 825–841 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuklisova-Murgasova, M., Quaghebeur, G., Rutherford, M.A., Hajnal, J.V., Schnabel, J.A.: Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal. Med. Image Anal. 16(8), 1550–1564 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lurie, D., et al.: On the nature of resting fMRI and time-varying functional connectivity. PsyArXiv Preprints (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lydon-Staley, D.M., Ciric, R., Satterthwaite, T.D., Bassett, D.S.: Evaluation of confound regression strategies for the mitigation of micromovement artifact in studies of dynamic resting-state functional connectivity and multilayer network modularity. Netw. Neurosci. 3(2), 427–454 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malamateniou, C., et al.: Motion-compensation techniques in neonatal and fetal MR imaging. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 34(6), 1124–1136 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy, K., Birn, R.M., Handwerker, D.A., Jones, T.B., Bandettini, P.A.: The impact of global signal regression on resting state correlations: are anti-correlated networks introduced? NeuroImage 44(3), 893–905 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parkes, L., Fulcher, B., Yücel, M., Fornito, A.: An evaluation of the efficacy, reliability, and sensitivity of motion correction strategies for resting-state functional MRI. NeuroImage 171, 415–436 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Power, J.D., Barnes, K.A., Snyder, A.Z., Schlaggar, B.L., Petersen, S.E.: Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. NeuroImage 59(3), 2142–2154 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Power, J.D., Mitra, A., Laumann, T.O., Snyder, A.Z., Schlaggar, B.L., Petersen, S.E.: Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. NeuroImage 84, 320–341 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preti, M.G., Bolton, T.A., Van De Ville, D.: The dynamic functional connectome: state-of-the-art and perspectives. NeuroImage 160, 41–54 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Dijk, K.R., Sabuncu, M.R., Buckner, R.L.: The influence of head motion on intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. NeuroImage 59(1), 431–438 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athena Taymourtash
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ernst Schwartz
    • 1
  • Karl-Heinz Nenning
    • 1
  • Daniel Sobotka
    • 1
  • Mariana Diogo
    • 2
  • Gregor Kasprian
    • 2
  • Daniela Prayer
    • 2
  • Georg Langs
    • 1
  1. 1.Computational Imaging Research Lab, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided TherapyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Division for Neuroradiology and Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided TherapyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations