Head motion: the dirty little secret of neuroimaging in psychiatry

Abstract

Psychiatry is at a crossroads when choosing final samples for analysis of neuroimaging data. Many patient populations exhibit significantly increased motion in the scanner compared with healthy controls, suggesting that more patients would need to be excluded to obtain a clean sample. However, this need is often overshadowed by the extensive amount of time and effort required to recruit these valuable and uncommon samples. This commentary sheds light on the impact of motion on imaging studies, drawing examples from psychiatric patient samples to better understand how head motion can confound interpretation of clinically oriented questions. We discuss the impact of even subtle motion artifacts on the interpretation of results as well as how different levels of stringency in quality control can affect findings within nearly identical samples. We also summarize recent initiatives toward harmonization of quality-control procedures as well as tools to prospectively and retrospectively correct for motion artifacts.

Fig. 1

Proposed quality control workflow for MRI data sets, both prospective and retrospective. Note: this figure is designed as a simplified guide and is not a comprehensive workflow for all imaging modalities and clinical populations. DTI = diffusion tensor imaging; fMRI = functional MRI; QC = quality control.