Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 28 April 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Advertisements

Group analyses Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London Will Penny.
Hierarchical Models and
Event-related fMRI (er-fMRI)
Group analysis Kherif Ferath Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London, Oct 2010.
Experimental design of fMRI studies SPM Course 2014 Sandra Iglesias Translational Neuromodeling Unit University of Zurich & ETH Zurich With many thanks.
Experimental design of fMRI studies Methods & models for fMRI data analysis in neuroeconomics April 2010 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural.
Bayesian models for fMRI data
Experimental design of fMRI studies SPM Course 2012 Sandra Iglesias Translational Neuromodeling Unit University of Zurich & ETH Zurich With many thanks.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis in neuroeconomics November 2010 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural.
The General Linear Model (GLM) Methods & models for fMRI data analysis in neuroeconomics November 2010 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social & Neural.
Bayesian models for fMRI data
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 18 March 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
Bayesian models for fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 06 May 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
Group analyses Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London Will Penny.
The General Linear Model (GLM)
The General Linear Model (GLM) SPM Course 2010 University of Zurich, February 2010 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social & Neural Systems Research.
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 29 October 2008 Klaas Enno Stephan Branco Weiss Laboratory (BWL) Institute for Empirical.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 26 November 2008 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
General Linear Model & Classical Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM M/EEGCourse London, May.
2nd Level Analysis Jennifer Marchant & Tessa Dekker
Methods for Dummies Second level analysis
With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, Virginia Flanagin and Klaas Enno Stephan Dr. Frederike Petzschner Translational Neuromodeling.
7/16/2014Wednesday Yingying Wang
SPM Course Zurich, February 2015 Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London With many thanks to.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis November 2012 With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly.
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Methods for Dummies Second level Analysis (for fMRI) Chris Hardy, Alex Fellows Expert: Guillaume Flandin.
FMRI Modelling & Statistical Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Chicago, Oct.
The General Linear Model
The General Linear Model Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM fMRI Course London, May 2012.
Group Analysis ‘Ōiwi Parker Jones SPM Course, London May 2015.
Variance components Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience Institute of Neurology, UCL, London Stefan Kiebel.
Bayesian Inference in SPM2 Will Penny K. Friston, J. Ashburner, J.-B. Poline, R. Henson, S. Kiebel, D. Glaser Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience,
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)
Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin SPM Course London, October 2016
The General Linear Model (GLM)
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping
The General Linear Model
2nd Level Analysis Methods for Dummies 2010/11 - 2nd Feb 2011
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Random Effects Analysis
Group analyses Thanks to Will Penny for slides and content
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
The General Linear Model (GLM)
'Linear Hierarchical Models'
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
The General Linear Model
Linear Hierarchical Modelling
Group analyses Thanks to Will Penny for slides and content
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping
SPM2: Modelling and Inference
The General Linear Model
Hierarchical Models and
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Variance components and Non-sphericity
Bayesian Inference in SPM2
Linear Hierarchical Models
The General Linear Model
The General Linear Model (GLM)
WellcomeTrust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
The General Linear Model
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
The General Linear Model
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Presentation transcript:

Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 28 April 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich Functional Imaging Laboratory (FIL) Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly Will Penny

Overview of SPM RealignmentSmoothing Normalisation General linear model Statistical parametric map (SPM) Image time-series Parameter estimates Design matrix Template Kernel Gaussian field theory p <0.05 Statisticalinference

Why hierachical models? fMRI, single subject fMRI, multi-subject ERP/ERF, multi-subject EEG/MEG, single subject Hierarchical models for all imaging data! time

Time BOLD signal Time single voxel time series single voxel time series Reminder: voxel-wise time series analysis! model specification model specification parameter estimation parameter estimation hypothesis statistic SPM

The model: voxel-wise GLM = + y y X X Model is specified by 1.Design matrix X 2.Assumptions about e Model is specified by 1.Design matrix X 2.Assumptions about e N: number of scans p: number of regressors N: number of scans p: number of regressors The design matrix embodies all available knowledge about experimentally controlled factors and potential confounds.

GLM assumes Gaussian “spherical” (i.i.d.) errors sphericity = iid: error covariance is scalar multiple of identity matrix: Cov(e) =  2 I sphericity = iid: error covariance is scalar multiple of identity matrix: Cov(e) =  2 I Examples for non-sphericity: non-identity non-independence

Multiple covariance components at 1 st level = Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Estimation of hyperparameters with ReML (restricted maximum likelihood). V enhanced noise model error covariance components Q and hyperparameters 

c = ReML- estimates t-statistic based on ML estimates For brevity:

Group level inference: fixed effects (FFX) assumes that parameters are “fixed properties of the population” all variability is only intra-subject variability, e.g. due to measurement errors Laird & Ware (1982): the probability distribution of the data has the same form for each individual and the same parameters In SPM: simply concatenate the data and the design matrices  lots of power (proportional to number of scans), but results are only valid for the group studied, can’t be generalized to the population

Group level inference: random effects (RFX) assumes that model parameters are probabilistically distributed in the population variance is due to inter-subject variability Laird & Ware (1982): the probability distribution of the data has the same form for each individual, but the parameters vary across individuals In SPM: hierarchical model  much less power (proportional to number of subjects), but results can be generalized to the population

Recommended reading Linear hierarchical models Mixed effect models

Linear hierarchical model Hierarchical model Multiple variance components at each level At each level, distribution of parameters is given by level above. What we don’t know: distribution of parameters and variance parameters (hyperparameters).

Example: Two-level model =+ = + Second level First level

Two-level model Friston et al. 2002, NeuroImage fixed effects random effects

Mixed effects analysis Non-hierarchical model Variance components at 2 nd level Estimating 2 nd level effects between-level non-sphericity Within-level non-sphericity at both levels: multiple covariance components Friston et al. 2005, NeuroImage within-level non-sphericity

Estimation EM-algorithm E-step M-step Assume, at voxel j: Assume, at voxel j: Friston et al. 2002, NeuroImage GN gradient ascent

Algorithmic equivalence Hierarchical model Hierarchical model Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) EM = PEB = ReML Restricted Maximum Likelihood (ReML) Restricted Maximum Likelihood (ReML) Single-level model Single-level model

Mixed effects analysis Summary statistics Summary statistics EM approach EM approach Step 1 Step 2 Friston et al. 2005, NeuroImage non-hierarchical model 1 st level non-sphericity 2 nd level non-sphericity pooling over voxels

Practical problems Most 2-level models are just too big to compute. And even if, it takes a long time! Moreover, sometimes we are only interested in one specific effect and do not want to model all the data. Is there a fast approximation?

Summary statistics approach Data Design Matrix Contrast Images SPM(t) Second level First level One-sample 2 nd level One-sample 2 nd level

Validity of the summary statistics approach The summary stats approach is exact if for each session/subject: All other cases: Summary stats approach seems to be fairly robust against typical violations. Within-session covariance the same First-level design the same One contrast per session

Reminder: sphericity „sphericity“ means: Scans i.e.

2nd level: non-sphericity Errors are independent but not identical: e.g. different groups (patients, controls) Errors are independent but not identical: e.g. different groups (patients, controls) Errors are not independent and not identical: e.g. repeated measures for each subject (like multiple basis functions) Errors are not independent and not identical: e.g. repeated measures for each subject (like multiple basis functions) Error covariance Error covariance

Example 1: non-indentical & independent errors Stimuli: Auditory Presentation (SOA = 4 secs) of (i) words and (ii) words spoken backwards Auditory Presentation (SOA = 4 secs) of (i) words and (ii) words spoken backwards Subjects: e.g. “Book” and “Koob” e.g. “Book” and “Koob” fMRI, 250 scans per subject, block design Scanning: (i) 12 control subjects (ii) 11 blind subjects (i) 12 control subjects (ii) 11 blind subjects Noppeney et al.

1 st level: 2 nd level: Controls Blinds

Stimuli: Auditory Presentation (SOA = 4 secs) of words Subjects: fMRI, 250 scans per subject, block design fMRI, 250 scans per subject, block design Scanning: (i) 12 control subjects 1. Motion2. Sound3. Visual4. Action “jump”“click”“pink”“turn” Question: What regions are generally affected by the semantic content of the words? Contrast: semantic decisions > auditory decisions on reversed words (gender identification task) What regions are generally affected by the semantic content of the words? Contrast: semantic decisions > auditory decisions on reversed words (gender identification task) Example 2: non-indentical & non-independent errors Noppeney et al. 2003, Brain 1. Words referred to body motion. Subjects decided if the body movement was slow. 2. Words referred to auditory features. Subjects decided if the sound was usually loud 3. Words referred to visual features. Subjects decided if the visual form was curved. 4. Words referred to hand actions. Subjects decided if the hand action involved a tool.

Repeated measures ANOVA 1 st level: 2 nd level: 3.Visual 4.Action ?=?= ?=?= ?=?= 1.Motion 2.Sound

Repeated measures ANOVA 1 st level: 2 nd level: 3.Visual 4.Action ?=?= ?=?= ?=?= 1.Motion 2.Sound

Practical conclusions Linear hierarchical models are used for group analyses of multi- subject imaging data. The main challenge is to model non-sphericity (i.e. non-identity and non-independence of errors) within and between levels of the hierarchy. This is done using EM or ReML (which are equivalent for linear models). The summary statistics approach is robust approximation to a full mixed-effects analysis. –Use mixed-effects model only, if seriously in doubt about validity of summary statistics approach.

Thank you