Literature DB >> 11906219

The quantitative evaluation of functional neuroimaging experiments: mutual information learning curves.

U Kjems1, L K Hansen, J Anderson, S Frutiger, S Muley, J Sidtis, D Rottenberg, S C Strother.   

Abstract

Learning curves are presented as an unbiased means for evaluating the performance of models for neuroimaging data analysis. The learning curve measures the predictive performance in terms of the generalization or prediction error as a function of the number of independent examples (e.g., subjects) used to determine the parameters in the model. Cross-validation resampling is used to obtain unbiased estimates of a generic multivariate Gaussian classifier, for training set sizes from 2 to 16 subjects. We apply the framework to four different activation experiments, in this case [(15)O]water data sets, although the framework is equally valid for multisubject fMRI studies. We demonstrate how the prediction error can be expressed as the mutual information between the scan and the scan label, measured in units of bits. The mutual information learning curve can be used to evaluate the impact of different methodological choices, e.g., classification label schemes, preprocessing choices. Another application for the learning curve is to examine the model performance using bias/variance considerations enabling the researcher to determine if the model performance is limited by statistical bias or variance. We furthermore present the sensitivity map as a general method for extracting activation maps from statistical models within the probabilistic framework and illustrate relationships between mutual information and pattern reproducibility as derived in the NPAIRS framework described in a companion paper. (C)2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11906219     DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.1033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  20 in total

1.  On the logic of hypothesis testing in functional imaging.

Authors:  Federico E Turkheimer; John A D Aston; Vincent J Cunningham
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  A mutual information-based metric for evaluation of fMRI data-processing approaches.

Authors:  Babak Afshin-Pour; Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh; Gholam-Ali Hossein-Zadeh; Cheryl L Grady; Stephen C Strother
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Exploring predictive and reproducible modeling with the single-subject FIAC dataset.

Authors:  Xu Chen; Francisco Pereira; Wayne Lee; Stephen Strother; Tom Mitchell
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Real-time fMRI using brain-state classification.

Authors:  Stephen M LaConte; Scott J Peltier; Xiaoping P Hu
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Multivariate linear regression of high-dimensional fMRI data with multiple target variables.

Authors:  Giancarlo Valente; Agustin Lage Castellanos; Gianluca Vanacore; Elia Formisano
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 6.  A review of feature reduction techniques in neuroimaging.

Authors:  Benson Mwangi; Tian Siva Tian; Jair C Soares
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2014-04

7.  A Java-based fMRI processing pipeline evaluation system for assessment of univariate general linear model and multivariate canonical variate analysis-based pipelines.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Lichen Liang; Jon R Anderson; Lael Gatewood; David A Rottenberg; Stephen C Strother
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2008-05-28

8.  Evaluation and comparison of GLM- and CVA-based fMRI processing pipelines with Java-based fMRI processing pipeline evaluation system.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Lichen Liang; Jon R Anderson; Lael Gatewood; David A Rottenberg; Stephen C Strother
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Comparing within-subject classification and regularization methods in fMRI for large and small sample sizes.

Authors:  Nathan W Churchill; Grigori Yourganov; Stephen C Strother
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Predicting aphasia type from brain damage measured with structural MRI.

Authors:  Grigori Yourganov; Kimberly G Smith; Julius Fridriksson; Chris Rorden
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 4.027

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.