Original analyses All ROIs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The SPM MfD course 12th Dec 2007 Elvina Chu
Advertisements

Basis Functions. What’s a basis ? Can be used to describe any point in space. e.g. the common Euclidian basis (x, y, z) forms a basis according to which.
2nd level analysis – design matrix, contrasts and inference
General Linear Model Beatriz Calvo Davina Bristow.
Outline What is ‘1st level analysis’? The Design matrix
The General Linear Model Or, What the Hell’s Going on During Estimation?
Efficiency in Experimental Design Catherine Jones MfD2004.
Chemometrics Method comparison
SeaWinds Empirical Rain Correction Using AMSR January 17, 2005 Bryan Stiles, Svetla Hristova-Veleva, and Scott Dunbar.
Pion test beam from KEK: momentum studies Data provided by Toho group: 2512 beam tracks D. Duchesneau April 27 th 2011 Track  x Track  y Base track positions.
BPS - 3rd Ed. Chapter 211 Inference for Regression.
Contrasts (a revision of t and F contrasts by a very dummyish Martha) & Basis Functions (by a much less dummyish Iroise!)
SPM5 Tutorial Part 2 Tiffany Elliott May 10, 2007.
FMRI Methods Lecture7 – Review: analyses & statistics.
Time series Model assessment. Tourist arrivals to NZ Period is quarterly.
Temporal Basis Functions Melanie Boly Methods for Dummies 27 Jan 2010.
1 Time Series Analysis of fMRI II: Noise, Inference, and Model Error Douglas N. Greve
Event-related fMRI SPM course May 2015 Helen Barron Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging 12 Queen Square.
Statistical Analysis An Introduction to MRI Physics and Analysis Michael Jay Schillaci, PhD Monday, April 7 th, 2007.
1 st level analysis: Design matrix, contrasts, and inference Stephane De Brito & Fiona McNabe.
Hierarchical statistical analysis of fMRI data across runs/sessions/subjects/studies using BRAINSTAT / FMRISTAT Jonathan Taylor, Stanford Keith Worsley,
BPS - 5th Ed. Chapter 231 Inference for Regression.
Review Design of experiments, histograms, average and standard deviation, normal approximation, measurement error, and probability.
The General Linear Model Christophe Phillips SPM Short Course London, May 2013.
The General Linear Model Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM fMRI Course London, October 2012.
The General Linear Model (GLM)
The General Linear Model
The General Linear Model (GLM): the marriage between linear systems and stats FFA.
Event-related fMRI demo
Interacting Roles of Attention and Visual Salience in V4
Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis, Alexander Mathis, Naoshige Uchida  Neuron 
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages (April 2009)
The SPM MfD course 12th Dec 2007 Elvina Chu
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages (February 2011)
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Guangying K. Wu, Pingyang Li, Huizhong W. Tao, Li I. Zhang  Neuron 
The General Linear Model
Volume 72, Issue 4, Pages (November 2011)
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages (December 2002)
Sam Norman-Haignere, Nancy G. Kanwisher, Josh H. McDermott  Neuron 
Volume 94, Issue 2, Pages e6 (April 2017)
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages (April 2009)
Basic Practice of Statistics - 3rd Edition Inference for Regression
Ariel Zylberberg, Daniel M. Wolpert, Michael N. Shadlen  Neuron 
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages (August 2007)
Motion-Based Analysis of Spatial Patterns by the Human Visual System
Direct Recordings of Pitch Responses from Human Auditory Cortex
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages (April 2003)
Attentional Modulations Related to Spatial Gating but Not to Allocation of Limited Resources in Primate V1  Yuzhi Chen, Eyal Seidemann  Neuron  Volume.
8.5 Modulation of Signals basic idea and goals
The General Linear Model
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages (March 2008)
Volume 94, Issue 2, Pages e6 (April 2017)
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Benedikt Zoefel, Alan Archer-Boyd, Matthew H. Davis  Current Biology 
Jonathan Taylor, Stanford Keith Worsley, McGill
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages (August 2011)
MfD 04/12/18 Alice Accorroni – Elena Amoruso
Erie D. Boorman, John P. O’Doherty, Ralph Adolphs, Antonio Rangel 
The General Linear Model
Timescales of Inference in Visual Adaptation
Stephen V. David, Benjamin Y. Hayden, James A. Mazer, Jack L. Gallant 
The General Linear Model
Predictive Neural Coding of Reward Preference Involves Dissociable Responses in Human Ventral Midbrain and Ventral Striatum  John P. O'Doherty, Tony W.
The General Linear Model
Local Origin of Field Potentials in Visual Cortex
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
Reward associations do not explain transitive inference performance in monkeys by Greg Jensen, Yelda Alkan, Vincent P. Ferrera, and Herbert S. Terrace.
Valerio Mante, Vincent Bonin, Matteo Carandini  Neuron 
Neurophysiology of the BOLD fMRI Signal in Awake Monkeys
Presentation transcript:

Original analyses All ROIs Box: standard error of mean effect across-conditions (e.g. one-sample t-test) Color lines: standard error of between-condition differences (e.g. paired t-test) All ROIs

Modified analyses: Time-shift experiment design by ~0.7s (in order to match the centering slice used during the slice-timing correction preprocessing step) Remove ‘first-production’ event-related regressors (they tend to introduce noise and potential biases due to lack of jitter in combination with block length -15s- being a fixed multiple of TR -2.5s-) Contrast estimation over ‘early’ within-block response only (first component of the block response –see next slide) Box: standard error of mean effect across-conditions (e.g. one-sample t-test) Color lines: standard error of between-condition differences (e.g. paired t-test) All ROIs

Temporal response within each block Finite impulse response fit 6th order: one response per acquisition, TR=2.5s, length=15s Results shown averaged across all ROIs The observed FIR response does not seem to be well fit by a standard block response (12s block convolved with hrf; best fit shown in black). The standard block response assumes a constant effect within the block, the fit can be improved using a two-component model that allows differential early vs. late effects within the block (shown in red) Two-component response fit Response within block broken in two components (early/late; block=12s, two ‘half’ blocks of 6s each, convolved with hrf). Both components are entered in the first-level models (separately for each condition). Results shown averaged across all ROIs (previous slide shows first-component-only results for each ROI) Differences in early vs. late components (relative reversal of condition-specific suppression) Issues: Within each 12s block the subject repeats 3 times the same speech production pairs; late component could be modulated by a relative drop in attention, long-range suppression, and/or higher top-down expectation/preparation effects

The strange ‘model delay’ issue explained? One of the early indications that there was some form of model misspecification was the observation that the first-level model fits improved when artificially adding a delay to the design matrix regressors (e.g. by changing the specified onsets of the conditions). This is shown in the ‘initial model’ plot below (optimal model shift seemed to be ~5s). That observation seemed to be caused not by any single issue or problem in the model but rather by a combination of different effects, each adding a small contribution to the overall observed delay (which just happened to be all in the same direction). The plots below show how each of the ‘corrections’ included in the modified model (when added sequentially one at a time) seem to reduce this observed delay (despite most of these ‘corrections’ being motivated by other issues): 1) Time-shift to match the centering slice used during slice-timing correction (this modification accounts for about 0.7s of the observed ~5s shift) 2) Removal of ‘first-production’ event-related regressors (this reduces the observed shift by 1-2s, likely due to the associated earlier peak of the hrf-convolved block response, which now starts 2s earlier than in the previous model) 3) Separation of early/late responses (this reduces the observed shift by an additional 1-2s, likely due to the earlier peak of the two-component model fit compared to the full-block regressor model –see first plot in previous slide-) Initial model: After time-shift: Model fit After removing event-related regressors: After separating early/late responses: Delay added to the design matrix regressors (s)

Additional Info

Original analyses

Modified analyses (slice-acquisition centering + remove first-repetition regressors)

Modified analyses + first half only

Modified analyses + second half only

Original analyses All ROIs Box: standard error of mean effect across-conditions (e.g. one-sample t-test) Color lines: standard error of between-condition differences (e.g. paired t-test) All ROIs

Modified analyses Experiment design lag matching the slice-timing correction centering slice Remove ‘first-repetition’ regressors Estimate initial response only (first half of the block response –see next slide) Box: standard error of mean effect across-conditions (e.g. one-sample t-test) Color lines: standard error of between-condition differences (e.g. paired t-test) All ROIs

Temporal response within each block Finite impulse response fit 6th order: one response per acquisition, TR=2.5s, block=15s (12s speech + 3s silence) Averaged across all ROIs Two-component response fit Response within block broken in two components (early/late) (block=12s, two ‘half’ blocks of 6s each, convolved with hrf) Averaged across all ROIs Differences in early vs. late components (relative reversal of condition-specific suppression) Issues: Within each 12s block the subject repeats 3 times the same speech production pairs; late component could be modulated by a relative drop in attention, long-range suppression, and/or higher top-down ‘expectation’ effects