Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands PPI Friston (1997) Gitelman (2003)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands PPI Friston (1997) Gitelman (2003)"— Presentation transcript:

1 BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands PPI Friston (1997) Gitelman (2003)

2 BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands Basic fMRI refreshments

3 BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands Friston et al 1997

4 Ni C October 2008 Friston 1997 n Introduction u Aim:  define PPI  Address interpretation u Basic idea:  Correlation between areas changes as context changes.

5 Ni C October 2008 Effective connectivety efficasy and contributions n Functional specialization n Functional integration n Functional connectivity u (correlation) n Effective connectivity u (taking into account full model)

6 Ni C October 2008 Effective connectivity efficacy and contributions Test on : H 0 :  ik =0 i.e., test correlation between regions Note if more regions, towards effective connectivity.

7 Ni C October 2008 Factorial designs and Psychological interactions n Imagine 1 task (g r ), two conditions (g a ) Note g r and g a are mean corrected

8 Ni C October 2008 Physiological interaction n Imagine 2 areas (g r, and g a ) gaga grgr BRAIN

9 Ni C October 2008 Physiological interaction n Example in paper: u g r =PP u g a =V1 u Responding area: V5 n Note this is interaction and not only due to PP, PP activity is a confound

10 Ni C October 2008 Non linear models SKIP

11 Ni C October 2008 Psychophysiological interaction n x k : source region (V1) n g p : task (-1 or +1 label)

12 Ni C October 2008 x k : V1 g p : task (attention)

13 Ni C October 2008 fit V1  V5 attentionNo attention

14 Ni C October 2008 Once more be aware V1 V5 V1 V5 ?

15 Ni C October 2008 Summary n Psychophysiological interaction u Predict activity in area B by area A as a function of context u PPI  effective connectivity u PPI=contribution (c.f. correlation) n Note on interpretations. u Connection A  B influenced by task u Influence Task  B is modified by activity in A u No guarantee that connections are direct.

16 BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands Gitelman et al 2003 (where Friston went “wrong”)

17 Ni C October 2008 Aim n Show importance of deconvolution n How to deconvolve properly

18 Ni C October 2008 Introduction n Don’t analyze interactions on raw BOLD signal. (using SEM PPI etc) n “veridical models of neuronal interactions require the neural signal or at least a well- constrained approximation to it. “

19 Ni C October 2008 A simulation (see examples) Time shift (0-8 s)

20 Ni C October 2008 Convolved with exp decay & hrf

21 Ni C October 2008 Deconvolve A&B Interaction Reconvolve

22 Ni C October 2008 Conclusion Interaction with the convolved signal  Interaction at neural representation + convolution

23 Ni C October 2008 Noise effect

24 Ni C October 2008 Noise effect

25 Ni C October 2008 conclusion n Noise has more effect on HRF interactions n Deconvolution reduces noise

26 Ni C October 2008 Real data ER

27 Ni C October 2008 Conclusion n There is an effect for event related designs. n Not so strong as simulations.

28 Ni C October 2008 Real data Block

29 Ni C October 2008 Conclusion n Effect on BLOCK design data is not dramatic. n In short: u Calculating interactions at neural representation pays especially for ER designs. u Friston was wrong, but not that far off because of block design in his experiment.

30 Ni C October 2008 Theory interaction on the convoluted signal (i.e. BOLD signal)

31 Ni C October 2008

32 Ni C October 2008 How to obtain x A from y A NOTE 112 columns Basis set

33 Ni C October 2008 How to obtain x A from y A X has too many columns  over determined matrix  not one unique solution

34 Ni C October 2008 Solution n Biased estimation. (bayesian stat.) n I start to get lost…..

35 Ni C October 2008 What I do understand n High frequencies are a problem in deconvolution. u Convolution is low pass filter.  high frequency information is lost  high frequency estimates are unstable/unreliable. n High frequencies were also the most troubling in interactions based on BOLD signal (cf ER & BLOCK designs) n High frequencies are regularized using bayesian stat.


Download ppt "BCN Neuroimaging Centre University of Groningen The Netherlands PPI Friston (1997) Gitelman (2003)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google