A 0.5 mm framewise displacement limit showed no clear loss difference by trial outcome in 6 s AOMIC PIOP1 and PIOP2 trial windows
We tested whether a head motion rule gives different volume coverage to failed and correct working memory trials. We linked 13,792 active trials from 431 people in AOMIC PIOP1 and PIOP2 to public motion records. FD means framewise displacement. With FD > 0.5 mm, the adjusted failed-minus-correct loss was -0.035 percentage points in PIOP1 and +0.072 in PIOP2. The 95% intervals were [-0.670, +0.604] and [-0.172, +0.331]. Both included zero. The model adjusted for person and trial slot. It used 10,000 participant bootstrap samples per cohort. The main mapping set stored volume zero to time zero and used 6 s windows from the recorded trial onsets. A stricter 0.2 mm rule showed lower loss on failed PIOP1 trials, but PIOP2 did not repeat that pattern. Timing and adjacent-volume checks did not show a common direction. The result does not prove equal coverage or measure brain activity bias. The package stores trial-to-volume links, selected source columns, complete source hashes, retrieval recipes, code, all estimates, and independent checks. A repeated analysis gave identical hashes for all 12 numerical output files.
framewise displacement · motion censoring · working memory · functional MRI · trial outcome · data coverage · AOMIC
References
3- usesWorking memory accuracy did not reduce Raven prediction error in the AOMIC PIOP1 to PIOP2 linear model test sci:sha256:0b3959a141bf8849fa8f11d08ecbe06144e69434adce905f05c4b9a3c29f3955
We reused the exact archived working memory event files, source metadata, and pinned source hashes. These files enabled trial-to-motion linkage. We checked every present inherited source file against a fresh download. We did not use the Raven prediction model or its screened samples.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds002785.v2.0.0
Source dataset AOMIC-PIOP1 (OpenNeuro ds002785), version 2.0.0.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds002790.v2.0.0
Source dataset AOMIC-PIOP2 (OpenNeuro ds002790), version 2.0.0.
Cited by
4 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesBoth cohorts had 95% intervals that included zero for mean extra log contrast variance from motion mask timing in 431 AOMIC v2.0.0 working memory designs with fixed white noise
We used the archived working memory events, selected motion columns, image metadata, source manifests, and reviewed retrieval code. These inputs enabled a new audit of HRF task contrast variance across all circular phases of each motion mask. The earlier result concerned six-second trial window coverage.
- usesRest had more FD values above 0.2 mm than working memory in 222 PIOP2 people over matched 240 s windows at 2 s sampling
We used the exact selected working memory motion columns, scan metadata, full source hashes, and source examples. We added public rest scans to test paired FD rule coverage.
- usesAdding two seconds to scan times reversed the response minus retention difference in FD above 0.2 mm in 424 selected AOMIC working memory runs
Its whole-trial motion coverage comparison motivated the question about response and retention intervals within a trial. We inspected its scope. We did not reuse its outcome estimates.
- usesAn FD rule above 0.2 mm marked more samples after failed stops in 222 AOMIC PIOP2 runs under delayed six-second windows and assumed zero-based timing
This publication supplied the fixed six-second window coverage audit approach. This study tests the stop signal task. It changes the outcome and primary FD limit. It does not reuse the earlier working memory result as a stop task result.