Topological Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London, May 2014 Many thanks to Justin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Statistical Inference
Advertisements

Mkael Symmonds, Bahador Bahrami
Random Field Theory Methods for Dummies 2009 Lea Firmin and Anna Jafarpour.
SPM for EEG/MEG Guillaume Flandin
Multiple comparison correction
Statistical Inference and Random Field Theory Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2003 Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2003 M.Brett et al.
Statistical Inference and Random Field Theory Will Penny SPM short course, Kyoto, Japan, 2002 Will Penny SPM short course, Kyoto, Japan, 2002.
Multiple comparison correction
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research University of Zurich With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods.
Classical inference and design efficiency Zurich SPM Course 2014
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
07/01/15 MfD 2014 Xin You Tai & Misun Kim
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 18 March 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
Comparison of Parametric and Nonparametric Thresholding Methods for Small Group Analyses Thomas Nichols & Satoru Hayasaka Department of Biostatistics U.
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 29 October 2008 Klaas Enno Stephan Branco Weiss Laboratory (BWL) Institute for Empirical.
False Discovery Rate Methods for Functional Neuroimaging Thomas Nichols Department of Biostatistics University of Michigan.
Giles Story Philipp Schwartenbeck
General Linear Model & Classical Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM M/EEGCourse London, May.
Statistical Inference, Multiple Comparisons and Random Field Theory Andrew Holmes SPM short course, May 2002 Andrew Holmes SPM short course, May 2002.
Multiple Comparison Correction in SPMs Will Penny SPM short course, Zurich, Feb 2008 Will Penny SPM short course, Zurich, Feb 2008.
Random Field Theory Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2005 Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2005 David Carmichael MfD 2006 David Carmichael.
Basics of fMRI Inference Douglas N. Greve. Overview Inference False Positives and False Negatives Problem of Multiple Comparisons Bonferroni Correction.
Random field theory Rumana Chowdhury and Nagako Murase Methods for Dummies November 2010.
Computational Biology Jianfeng Feng Warwick University.
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis October 2013 With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group & Tom Nichols.
Multiple comparisons in M/EEG analysis Gareth Barnes Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM M/EEG Course London, May 2013.
1 Inference on SPMs: Random Field Theory & Alternatives Thomas Nichols, Ph.D. Department of Statistics & Warwick Manufacturing Group University of Warwick.
Methods for Dummies Random Field Theory Annika Lübbert & Marian Schneider.
Classical Inference on SPMs Justin Chumbley SPM Course Oct 23, 2008.
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
**please note** Many slides in part 1 are corrupt and have lost images and/or text. Part 2 is fine. Unfortunately, the original is not available, so please.
Random Field Theory Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2005 Will Penny SPM short course, London, May 2005.
Random Field Theory Ciaran S Hill & Christian Lambert Methods for Dummies 2008.
Event-related fMRI Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Chicago, Oct 2015.
Functional Brain Signal Processing: EEG & fMRI Lesson 14
The False Discovery Rate A New Approach to the Multiple Comparisons Problem Thomas Nichols Department of Biostatistics University of Michigan.
Spatial Smoothing and Multiple Comparisons Correction for Dummies Alexa Morcom, Matthew Brett Acknowledgements.
Multiple comparisons problem and solutions James M. Kilner
Topological Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London, May 2015 With thanks to Justin.
Multiple comparison correction
False Discovery Rate for Functional Neuroimaging Thomas Nichols Department of Biostatistics University of Michigan Christopher Genovese & Nicole Lazar.
General Linear Model & Classical Inference London, SPM-M/EEG course May 2016 Sven Bestmann, Sobell Department, Institute of Neurology, UCL
What a Cluster F… ailure!
Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin SPM Course London, October 2016
Topological Inference
Statistical Analysis of M/EEG Sensor- and Source-Level Data
The General Linear Model
Inference on SPMs: Random Field Theory & Alternatives
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Methods for Dummies Random Field Theory
Multiple comparisons in M/EEG analysis
M/EEG Statistical Analysis & Source Localization
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Topological Inference
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
Inference on SPMs: Random Field Theory & Alternatives
Statistical Parametric Mapping
SPM2: Modelling and Inference
M/EEG Statistical Analysis & Source Localization
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
Bayesian Inference in SPM2
The General Linear Model
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich.
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich.
Statistical Inference
The General Linear Model
The General Linear Model
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
Presentation transcript:

Topological Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London, May 2014 Many thanks to Justin Chumbley, Tom Nichols and Gareth Barnes for slides

Pre- processings General Linear Model Statistical Inference Contrast c Random Field Theory

Statistical Parametric Maps mm time mm time frequency fMRI, VBM, M/EEG source reconstruction M/EEG 2D time-frequency M/EEG 2D+t scalp-time M/EEG 1D channel-time time mm

Inference at a single voxel Null distribution of test statistic T u Decision rule (threshold) u : determines false positive rate α Null Hypothesis H 0 : zero activation  Choose u to give acceptable α under H 0

Multiple tests t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu If we have 100,000 voxels, α =0.05  5,000 false positive voxels. This is clearly undesirable; to correct for this we can define a null hypothesis for a collection of tests. Noise

Multiple tests t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu t  uu If we have 100,000 voxels, α =0.05  5,000 false positive voxels. This is clearly undesirable; to correct for this we can define a null hypothesis for a collection of tests.

Family-Wise Null Hypothesis FWE Use of ‘corrected’ p-value, α =0.1 Use of ‘uncorrected’ p-value, α =0.1 Family-Wise Null Hypothesis: Activation is zero everywhere Family-Wise Null Hypothesis: Activation is zero everywhere If we reject a voxel null hypothesis at any voxel, we reject the family-wise Null hypothesis A FP anywhere in the image gives a Family Wise Error (FWE) Family-Wise Error rate (FWER) = ‘corrected’ p-value

Bonferroni correction The Family-Wise Error rate (FWER), α FWE, for a family of N tests follows the inequality: where α is the test-wise error rate. Therefore, to ensure a particular FWER choose: This correction does not require the tests to be independent but becomes very stringent if dependence.

Spatial correlations 100 x 100 independent testsSpatially correlated tests (FWHM=10) Bonferroni is too conservative for spatial correlated data. Discrete dataSpatially extended data

Random Field Theory  Consider a statistic image as a discretisation of a continuous underlying random field.  Use results from continuous random field theory. lattice representation

Topological inference Topological feature: Peak height Topological feature: Peak height space Peak level inference

Topological inference Topological feature: Cluster extent Topological feature: Cluster extent space u clus u clus : cluster-forming threshold Cluster level inference

Topological inference Topological feature: Number of clusters Topological feature: Number of clusters space u clus u clus : cluster-forming threshold c Set level inference

RFT and Euler Characteristic

Expected Euler Characteristic 2D Gaussian Random Field Search volume Roughness (1/smoothness) Threshold

Smoothness Smoothness parameterised in terms of FWHM: Size of Gaussian kernel required to smooth i.i.d. noise to have same smoothness as observed null (standardized) data. FWHM Eg: 10 voxels, 2.5 FWHM, 4 RESELS The number of resels is similar, but not identical to the number independent observations. Smoothness estimated from spatial derivatives of standardised residuals: Yields an RPV image containing local roughness estimation.

Random Field intuition Corrected p-value for statistic value t

Random Field: Unified Theory General form for expected Euler characteristic t, F &  2 fields restricted search regions D dimensions  d (u) : d-dimensional EC density of the field – function of dimension and threshold, specific for RF type: E.g. Gaussian RF:  0 (u) = 1-  (u)  1 (u) = (4 ln2) 1/2 exp(-u 2 /2) / (2  )  2 (u) = (4 ln2) u exp(-u 2 /2) / (2  ) 3/2  3 (u) = (4 ln2) 3/2 (u 2 -1) exp(-u 2 /2) / (2  ) 2  4 (u) = (4 ln2) 2 (u 3 -3u) exp(-u 2 /2) / (2  ) 5/2 

Peak, cluster and set level inference Peak level test: height of local maxima Cluster level test: spatial extent above u Set level test: number of clusters above u Sensitivity  Regional specificity  : significant at the set level : significant at the cluster level : significant at the peak level L 1 > spatial extent threshold L 2 < spatial extent threshold

Random Field Theory  The statistic image is assumed to be a good lattice representation of an underlying continuous stationary random field. Typically, FWHM > 3 voxels (combination of intrinsic and extrinsic smoothing)  Smoothness of the data is unknown and estimated: very precise estimate by pooling over voxels  stationarity assumptions (esp. relevant for cluster size results).  A priori hypothesis about where an activation should be, reduce search volume  Small Volume Correction: mask defined by (probabilistic) anatomical atlases mask defined by separate "functional localisers" mask defined by orthogonal contrasts (spherical) search volume around previously reported coordinates

Conclusion  There is a multiple testing problem and corrections have to be applied on p-values (for the volume of interest only (see SVC)).  Inference is made about topological features (peak height, spatial extent, number of clusters). Use results from the Random Field Theory.  Control of FWER (probability of a false positive anywhere in the image) for a space of any dimension and shape.

References  Friston KJ, Frith CD, Liddle PF, Frackowiak RS. Comparing functional (PET) images: the assessment of significant change. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism,  Worsley KJ, Evans AC, Marrett S, Neelin P. A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism  Worsley KJ, Marrett S, Neelin P, Vandal AC, Friston KJ, Evans AC. A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Human Brain Mapping,1996.  Chumbley J, Worsley KJ, Flandin G, and Friston KJ. Topological FDR for neuroimaging. NeuroImage,  Kilner J and Friston KJ. Topological inference for EEG and MEG data. Annals of Applied Statistics,  Bias in a common EEG and MEG statistical analysis and how to avoid it. Kilner J. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2013.