Bayesian Inference and Posterior Probability Maps Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
J. Daunizeau Institute of Empirical Research in Economics, Zurich, Switzerland Brain and Spine Institute, Paris, France Bayesian inference.
Advertisements

Bayesian fMRI models with Spatial Priors Will Penny (1), Nelson Trujillo-Barreto (2) Guillaume Flandin (1) Stefan Kiebel(1), Karl Friston (1) (1) Wellcome.
Bayesian inference Lee Harrison York Neuroimaging Centre 01 / 05 / 2009.
Hierarchical Models and
1st level analysis - Design matrix, contrasts & inference
Bayesian models for fMRI data
MEG/EEG Inverse problem and solutions In a Bayesian Framework EEG/MEG SPM course, Bruxelles, 2011 Jérémie Mattout Lyon Neuroscience Research Centre ? ?
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
Bayesian models for fMRI data
07/01/15 MfD 2014 Xin You Tai & Misun Kim
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.
J. Daunizeau Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK Institute of Empirical Research in Economics, Zurich, Switzerland Bayesian inference.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 28 April 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and 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.
Preprocessing II: Between Subjects John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Variational Bayesian Inference for fMRI time series Will Penny, Stefan Kiebel and Karl Friston Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University.
Estimating the Transfer Function from Neuronal Activity to BOLD Maria Joao Rosa SPM Homecoming 2008 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging.
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
Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM): Theory Demis Hassabis & Hanneke den Ouden Thanks to Klaas Enno Stephan Functional Imaging Lab Wellcome Dept. of Imaging.
METHODSDUMMIES BAYES FOR BEGINNERS. Any given Monday at pm “I’m sure this makes sense, but you lost me about here…”
SPM Course Zurich, February 2015 Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London With many thanks to.
Bayes for Beginners Reverend Thomas Bayes ( ) Velia Cardin Marta Garrido.
Corinne Introduction/Overview & Examples (behavioral) Giorgia functional Brain Imaging Examples, Fixed Effects Analysis vs. Random Effects Analysis Models.
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
DCM – the theory. Bayseian inference DCM examples Choosing the best model Group analysis.
Bayesian models for fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis November 2011 With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly.
Ch. 5 Bayesian Treatment of Neuroimaging Data Will Penny and Karl Friston Ch. 5 Bayesian Treatment of Neuroimaging Data Will Penny and Karl Friston 18.
Methods for Dummies Second level Analysis (for fMRI) Chris Hardy, Alex Fellows Expert: Guillaume Flandin.
Multimodal Brain Imaging Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College, London Guillaume Flandin, CEA, Paris Nelson Trujillo-Barreto, CNC,
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping I: Introduction to the GLM Alexa Morcom and Stefan Kiebel, Rik Henson, Andrew Holmes & J-B.
Bayesian Methods Will Penny and Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course, London, May 12.
Bayesian inference Lee Harrison York Neuroimaging Centre 23 / 10 / 2009.
Variance components Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience Institute of Neurology, UCL, London Stefan Kiebel.
Dynamic Causal Models Will Penny Olivier David, Karl Friston, Lee Harrison, Andrea Mechelli, Klaas Stephan Mathematics in Brain Imaging, IPAM, UCLA, USA,
Mixture Models with Adaptive Spatial Priors Will Penny Karl Friston Acknowledgments: Stefan Kiebel and John Ashburner The Wellcome Department of Imaging.
Bayesian Inference in fMRI Will Penny Bayesian Approaches in Neuroscience Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm February 2016.
Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Zurich, February 2008 Bayesian Inference.
Bayesian Inference in SPM2 Will Penny K. Friston, J. Ashburner, J.-B. Poline, R. Henson, S. Kiebel, D. Glaser Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience,
Dynamic Causal Models Will Penny Olivier David, Karl Friston, Lee Harrison, Stefan Kiebel, Andrea Mechelli, Klaas Stephan MultiModal Brain Imaging, Copenhagen,
Bayesian fMRI analysis with Spatial Basis Function Priors
J. Daunizeau ICM, Paris, France TNU, Zurich, Switzerland
Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin SPM Course London, October 2016
Variational Bayesian Inference for fMRI time series
2nd Level Analysis Methods for Dummies 2010/11 - 2nd Feb 2011
Bayesian Inference Will Penny
Neuroscience Research Institute University of Manchester
Keith Worsley Keith Worsley
'Linear Hierarchical Models'
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Statistical Parametric Mapping
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping
SPM2: Modelling and Inference
Bayesian Methods in Brain Imaging
Hierarchical Models and
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Bayesian inference J. Daunizeau
Bayesian Inference in SPM2
Wellcome Centre for Neuroimaging, UCL, UK.
Mixture Models with Adaptive Spatial Priors
Probabilistic Modelling of Brain Imaging Data
WellcomeTrust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Will Penny Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging,
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Presentation transcript:

Bayesian Inference and Posterior Probability Maps Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course, London, May 2005

Overview Introduction Bayesian inference  Segmentation and Normalisation  Gaussian Prior and Likelihood  Posterior Probability Maps (PPMs)  Global shrinkage prior (2 nd level)  Spatial prior (1 st level)  Bayesian Model Comparison  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models (DCMs) Summary SPM5

In SPM, the p-value reflects the probability of getting the observed data in the effect’s absence. If sufficiently small, this p-value can be used to reject the null hypothesis that the effect is negligible. Classical approach shortcomings Shortcomings of this approach: Solution: using the probability distribution of the activation given the data. Probability of the data, given no activation  One can never accept the null hypothesis  Correction for multiple comparisons  Given enough data, one can always demonstrate a significant effect at every voxel

Baye ’ s Rule  YY Given p(Y), p(  ) and p(Y,  ) Conditional densities are given by Eliminating p(Y,  ) gives Baye’s rule Likelihood Prior Evidence Posterior

Bayesian Inference Three steps:  Observation of data  Y  Formulation of a generative model  likelihood p(Y|  )  prior distribution p(  )  Update of beliefs based upon observations, given a prior state of knowledge

Overview Introduction Bayesian inference  Segmentation and Normalisation  Gaussian Prior and Likelihood  Posterior Probability Maps (PPMs)  Global shrinkage prior (2nd level)  Spatial prior (1 st level)  Bayesian Model Comparison  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models (DCMs) Summary SPM5

Bayes and Spatial Preprocessing Normalisation Mean square difference between template and source image (goodness of fit) Mean square difference between template and source image (goodness of fit) Squared distance between parameters and their expected values (regularisation) MAP: Deformation parameters Unlikely deformation

Bayes and Spatial Preprocessing Segmentation Intensities are modelled by a mixture of K Gaussian distributions. Overlay prior belonging probability maps to assist the segmentation:  Prior probability of each voxel being of a particular type is derived from segmented images of 151 subjects. Intensities are modelled by a mixture of K Gaussian distributions. Overlay prior belonging probability maps to assist the segmentation:  Prior probability of each voxel being of a particular type is derived from segmented images of 151 subjects.

Overview Introduction Bayesian inference  Segmentation and Normalisation  Gaussian Prior and Likelihood  Posterior Probability Maps (PPMs)  Global shrinkage prior (2 nd level)  Spatial prior (1 st level)  Bayesian Model Comparison  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models (DCMs) Summary SPM5

Gaussian Case Likelihood and Prior Posterior Relative Precision Weighting Prior Likelihood Posterior

Overview Introduction Bayesian inference  Segmentation and Normalisation  Gaussian Prior and Likelihood  Posterior Probability Maps (PPMs)  Global shrinkage prior (2 nd level)  Spatial prior (1 st level)  Bayesian Model Comparison  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models (DCMs) Summary SPM5

Bayesian fMRI General Linear Model: What are the priors? with In “classical” SPM, no (flat) priors In “full” Bayes, priors might be from theoretical arguments or from independent data In “empirical” Bayes, priors derive from the same data, assuming a hierarchical model for generation of the data Parameters of one level can be made priors on distribution of parameters at lower level Parameters and hyperparameters at each level can be estimated using EM algorithm

Bayesian fMRI: what prior? General Linear Model: Shrinkage prior: 0 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, parameters will shrink to zero If C ε and C β are known, then the posterior is:  We are looking for the same effect over multiple voxels  Pooled estimation of C β over voxels via EM

Bayesian Inference Likelihood Prior Posterior SPMsSPMs PPMsPPMs Bayesian test Classical T-test

Posterior Probability Maps Posterior distribution: probability of getting an effect, given the data Posterior probability map: images of the probability or confidence that an activation exceeds some specified threshold, given the data Two thresholds: activation threshold  : percentage of whole brain mean signal (physiologically relevant size of effect) probability  that voxels must exceed to be displayed (e.g. 95%) Two thresholds: activation threshold  : percentage of whole brain mean signal (physiologically relevant size of effect) probability  that voxels must exceed to be displayed (e.g. 95%) mean: size of effect precision: variability

Posterior Probability Maps Mean (Cbeta_*.img) Std dev (SDbeta_*.img) PPM (spmP_*.img) Activation threshold  Probability  Posterior probability distribution p(  |Y )

SPM and PPM (PET) PPMs: Show activations greater than a given size SPMs: Show voxels with non-zeros activations Verbal fluency data

SPM and PPM (fMRI 1 st level) SPM PPM C. Buchel et al, Cerebral Cortex, 1997

SPM and PPM (fMRI 2 nd level) SPM PPM R. Henson et al, Cerebral Cortex, 2002

PPMs: Pros and Cons ■ One can infer a cause DID NOT elicit a response ■ Inference independent of search volume ■ SPMs conflate effect- size and effect-variability ■ One can infer a cause DID NOT elicit a response ■ Inference independent of search volume ■ SPMs conflate effect- size and effect-variability Disadvantages Advantages ■ Use of priors over voxels is computationally demanding ■ Utility of Bayesian approach is yet to be established ■ Use of priors over voxels is computationally demanding ■ Utility of Bayesian approach is yet to be established

Bayesian fMRI with spatial priors Even without applied spatial smoothing, activation maps (and maps of eg. AR coefficients) have spatial structure. AR(1)Contrast  Definition of a spatial prior via Gaussian Markov Random Field  Automatically spatially regularisation of Regression coefficients and AR coefficients 1 st level

The Generative Model  A   Y Y=X β +E where E is an AR(p) General Linear Model with Auto-Regressive error terms (GLM-AR):

Spatial prior Over the regression coefficients: Shrinkage prior Same prior on the AR coefficients. Spatial kernel matrix Spatial precison: determines the amount of smoothness Gaussian Markov Random Field priors 1 on diagonal elements d ii d ij > 0 if voxels i and j are neighbors. 0 elsewhere

Prior, Likelihood and Posterior The prior: The likelihood: The posterior? The posterior over  doesn’t factorise over k or n.  Exact inference is intractable. p(  |Y) ?

Variational Bayes Approximate posteriors that allows for factorisation Initialisation While (ΔF > tol) Update Suff. Stats. for β Update Suff. Stats. for A Update Suff. Stats. for λ Update Suff. Stats. for α Update Suff. Stats. for γ End Initialisation While (ΔF > tol) Update Suff. Stats. for β Update Suff. Stats. for A Update Suff. Stats. for λ Update Suff. Stats. for α Update Suff. Stats. for γ End Variational Bayes Algorithm

Event related fMRI: familiar versus unfamiliar faces Global prior Spatial Prior Smoothing

Convergence & Sensitivity o Global o Spatial o Smoothing Sensitivity Iteration Number F 1-Specificity ROC curve Convergence

SPM5 Interface

Overview Introduction Bayesian inference  Segmentation and Normalisation  Gaussian Prior and Likelihood  Posterior Probability Maps (PPMs)  Global shrinkage prior (2 nd level)  Spatial prior (1 st level)  Bayesian Model Comparison  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models (DCMs) Summary SPM5

Bayesian Model Comparison Select the model m with the highest probability given the data: Model comparison and Baye’s factor: Model evidence (marginal likelihood): Accuracy Complexity B 12 p(m 1 |Y)Evidence 1 to Weak 3 to Positive 20 to Strong  150  99 Very strong

Comparing Dynamic Causal Models V1 V5 SPC Motion Photic Attention V1 V5 SPC Motion Photic Attention V1V5SPC Motion Photic Attention Bayesian Evidence: Bayes factors: m=1 m=3 m= Attention 0.03

Summary ■Bayesian inference: –There is no null hypothesis –Allows to incorporate some prior belief ■Posterior Probability Maps  Empirical Bayes for 2 nd level analyses: Global shrinkage prior  Variational Bayes for single-subject analyses: Spatial prior on regression and AR coefficients ■Bayesian framework also allows: –Bayesian Model Comparison

References ■ Classical and Bayesian Inference, Penny and Friston, Human Brain Function (2 nd edition), ■ Classical and Bayesian Inference in Neuroimaging: Theory/Applications, Friston et al., NeuroImage, ■ Posterior Probability Maps and SPMs, Friston and Penny, NeuroImage, ■ Variational Bayesian Inference for fMRI time series, Penny et al., NeuroImage, ■ Bayesian fMRI time series analysis with spatial priors, Penny et al., NeuroImage, ■ Comparing Dynamic Causal Models, Penny et al, NeuroImage, 2004.