31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimizing Experimental Design for Comparing Models of Brain Function

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article presents the first attempt to formalize the optimization of experimental design with the aim of comparing models of brain function based on neuroimaging data. We demonstrate our approach in the context of Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM), which relates experimental manipulations to observed network dynamics (via hidden neuronal states) and provides an inference framework for selecting among candidate models. Here, we show how to optimize the sensitivity of model selection by choosing among experimental designs according to their respective model selection accuracy. Using Bayesian decision theory, we (i) derive the Laplace-Chernoff risk for model selection, (ii) disclose its relationship with classical design optimality criteria and (iii) assess its sensitivity to basic modelling assumptions. We then evaluate the approach when identifying brain networks using DCM. Monte-Carlo simulations and empirical analyses of fMRI data from a simple bimanual motor task in humans serve to demonstrate the relationship between network identification and the optimal experimental design. For example, we show that deciding whether there is a feedback connection requires shorter epoch durations, relative to asking whether there is experimentally induced change in a connection that is known to be present. Finally, we discuss limitations and potential extensions of this work.

          Author Summary

          During the past two decades, brain mapping research has undergone a paradigm switch. In addition to localizing brain regions that encode specific sensory, motor or cognitive processes, neuroimaging data is nowadays further exploited to ask questions about how information is transmitted through brain networks. The ambition here is to ask questions such as: “what is the nature of the information that region A passes on to region B”. This can be experimentally addressed by, e.g., showing that the influence that A exerts onto B depends upon specific sensory, motor or cognitive manipulations. This means one has to compare (in a statistical sense) candidate network models of the brain (with different modulations of effective connectivity, say), based on experimental data. The question we address here is how one should design the experiment in order to best discriminate such candidate models. We approach the problem from a statistical decision theoretical perspective, whereby the optimal design is the one that minimizes the model selection error rate. We demonstrate the approach using simulated and empirical data and show how it can be applied to any experimental question that can be framed as a model comparison problem.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Network modelling methods for FMRI.

          There is great interest in estimating brain "networks" from FMRI data. This is often attempted by identifying a set of functional "nodes" (e.g., spatial ROIs or ICA maps) and then conducting a connectivity analysis between the nodes, based on the FMRI timeseries associated with the nodes. Analysis methods range from very simple measures that consider just two nodes at a time (e.g., correlation between two nodes' timeseries) to sophisticated approaches that consider all nodes simultaneously and estimate one global network model (e.g., Bayes net models). Many different methods are being used in the literature, but almost none has been carefully validated or compared for use on FMRI timeseries data. In this work we generate rich, realistic simulated FMRI data for a wide range of underlying networks, experimental protocols and problematic confounds in the data, in order to compare different connectivity estimation approaches. Our results show that in general correlation-based approaches can be quite successful, methods based on higher-order statistics are less sensitive, and lag-based approaches perform very poorly. More specifically: there are several methods that can give high sensitivity to network connection detection on good quality FMRI data, in particular, partial correlation, regularised inverse covariance estimation and several Bayes net methods; however, accurate estimation of connection directionality is more difficult to achieve, though Patel's τ can be reasonably successful. With respect to the various confounds added to the data, the most striking result was that the use of functionally inaccurate ROIs (when defining the network nodes and extracting their associated timeseries) is extremely damaging to network estimation; hence, results derived from inappropriate ROI definition (such as via structural atlases) should be regarded with great caution. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dynamic causal modelling.

            In this paper we present an approach to the identification of nonlinear input-state-output systems. By using a bilinear approximation to the dynamics of interactions among states, the parameters of the implicit causal model reduce to three sets. These comprise (1) parameters that mediate the influence of extrinsic inputs on the states, (2) parameters that mediate intrinsic coupling among the states, and (3) [bilinear] parameters that allow the inputs to modulate that coupling. Identification proceeds in a Bayesian framework given known, deterministic inputs and the observed responses of the system. We developed this approach for the analysis of effective connectivity using experimentally designed inputs and fMRI responses. In this context, the coupling parameters correspond to effective connectivity and the bilinear parameters reflect the changes in connectivity induced by inputs. The ensuing framework allows one to characterise fMRI experiments, conceptually, as an experimental manipulation of integration among brain regions (by contextual or trial-free inputs, like time or attentional set) that is revealed using evoked responses (to perturbations or trial-bound inputs, like stimuli). As with previous analyses of effective connectivity, the focus is on experimentally induced changes in coupling (cf., psychophysiologic interactions). However, unlike previous approaches in neuroimaging, the causal model ascribes responses to designed deterministic inputs, as opposed to treating inputs as unknown and stochastic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Modeling regional and psychophysiologic interactions in fMRI: the importance of hemodynamic deconvolution.

              The analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) time-series data can provide information not only about task-related activity, but also about the connectivity (functional or effective) among regions and the influences of behavioral or physiologic states on that connectivity. Similar analyses have been performed in other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography. However, fMRI is unique because the information about the underlying neuronal activity is filtered or convolved with a hemodynamic response function. Previous studies of regional connectivity in fMRI have overlooked this convolution and have assumed that the observed hemodynamic response approximates the neuronal response. In this article, this assumption is revisited using estimates of underlying neuronal activity. These estimates use a parametric empirical Bayes formulation for hemodynamic deconvolution.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                November 2011
                November 2011
                17 November 2011
                : 7
                : 11
                : e1002280
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research, Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
                Indiana University, United States of America
                Author notes

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JD KP KS. Performed the experiments: JD KP. Analyzed the data: JD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JD. Wrote the paper: JD KF KS. Revised the Manuscript: KP KF KS.

                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-11-00939
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002280
                3219623
                22125485
                c81dc356-a05c-4873-bbd2-21ff91e51ee9
                Daunizeau et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 25 June 2011
                : 5 October 2011
                Page count
                Pages: 18
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Computational Biology
                Neuroscience
                Mathematics
                Probability Theory
                Statistics
                Social and Behavioral Sciences
                Psychology
                Experimental Psychology

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article