Search for a command to run...
Abstract Subject motion during fMRI can affect our ability to accurately measure signals of interest. In recent years, frame censoring—that is, statistically excluding motion-contaminated data within the general linear model using nuisance regressors—has appeared in several task-based fMRI studies as a mitigation strategy. However, there have been few systematic investigations quantifying its efficacy. In the present study, we compared the performance of frame censoring to several other common motion correction approaches for task-based fMRI using open data and reproducible workflows. We analyzed eight publicly-available datasets representing eleven distinct tasks in child, adolescent, and adult participants. Performance was quantified using maximum t-values in group analyses, and ROI-based mean activation and split-half reliability in single subjects. We compared frame censoring across several thresholds to the use of 6 and 24 canonical motion regressors, wavelet despiking, robust weighted least squares, and untrained ICA-based denoising, for a total of 240 separate analyses. Thresholds used to identify censored frames were based on both motion estimates (FD) and image intensity changes (DVARS). Relative to standard motion regressors, we found consistent improvements for modest amounts of frame censoring (e.g., 1–2% data loss), although these gains were frequently comparable to what could be achieved using other techniques. Importantly, no single approach consistently outperformed the others across all datasets and tasks. These findings suggest that the choice of a motion mitigation strategy depends on both the dataset and the outcome metric of interest.