Literature DB >> 19463958

Simple group fMRI modeling and inference.

Jeanette A Mumford1, Thomas Nichols.   

Abstract

While many advanced mixed-effects models have been proposed and are used in fMRI, the simplest, ordinary least squares (OLS), is still the one that is most widely used. A survey of 90 papers found that 92% of group fMRI analyses used OLS. Despite the widespread use, this simple approach has never been thoroughly justified and evaluated; for example, the typical reference for the method is a conference abstract, (Holmes, A., Friston, K., 1998. Generalisability, random effects & population inference. NeuroImage 7 (4 (2/3)), S754, proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, June 7-12, 1998, Montreal, Canada.), which has been referenced over 400 times. In this work we fully derive the simplified method in a general setting and carefully identify the homogeneity assumptions it is based on. We examine the specificity (Type I error rate) of the OLS method under heterogeneity in the one-sample case and find that the OLS method is valid, with only slight conservativeness. Surprisingly, a Satterthwaite approximation for effective degrees of freedom only makes the method more conservative, instead of more accurate. While other authors have highlighted the inferior power of the OLS method relative to optimal mixed-effects methods under heterogeneity, we revisit these results and find the power differences very modest. While statistical methods that make the best use of the data are always to be preferred, software or other practical concerns may require the use of the simple OLS group modeling. In such cases, we find that group mean inferences will be valid under the null hypothesis and will have nearly optimal sensitivity under the alternative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19463958      PMCID: PMC2719771          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.034

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


  14 in total

1.  A general statistical analysis for fMRI data.

Authors:  K J Worsley; C H Liao; J Aston; V Petre; G H Duncan; F Morales; A C Evans
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: theory.

Authors:  K J Friston; W Penny; C Phillips; S Kiebel; G Hinton; J Ashburner
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  A heuristic for the degrees of freedom of statistics based on multiple variance parameters.

Authors:  Stefan J Kiebel; Daniel E Glaser; Karl J Friston
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Mark W Woolrich; Timothy E J Behrens; Christian F Beckmann; Mark Jenkinson; Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Mixed-effects and fMRI studies.

Authors:  K J Friston; K E Stephan; T E Lund; A Morcom; S Kiebel
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-01-01       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 6.  Modeling and inference of multisubject fMRI data.

Authors:  Jeanette A Mumford; Thomas Nichols
Journal:  IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr

7.  Combined permutation test and mixed-effect model for group average analysis in fMRI.

Authors:  Sébastien Mériaux; Alexis Roche; Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz; Bertrand Thirion; Jean-Baptiste Poline
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components.

Authors:  F E SATTERTHWAITE
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1946-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Analysis of fMRI time-series revisited--again.

Authors:  K J Worsley; K J Friston
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Engagement of fusiform cortex and disengagement of lateral occipital cortex in the acquisition of radiological expertise.

Authors:  Erin M Harley; Whitney B Pope; J Pablo Villablanca; Jeanette Mumford; Robert Suh; John C Mazziotta; Dieter Enzmann; Stephen A Engel
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-03-25       Impact factor: 5.357

View more
  32 in total

1.  Estimating and testing variance components in a multi-level GLM.

Authors:  Martin A Lindquist; Julie Spicer; Iris Asllani; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Prequit fMRI responses to pleasant cues and cigarette-related cues predict smoking cessation outcome.

Authors:  Francesco Versace; Jeffrey M Engelmann; Jason D Robinson; Edward F Jackson; Charles E Green; Cho Y Lam; Jennifer A Minnix; Maher A Karam-Hage; Victoria L Brown; David W Wetter; Paul M Cinciripini
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-12-27       Impact factor: 4.244

3.  The principled control of false positives in neuroimaging.

Authors:  Craig M Bennett; George L Wolford; Michael B Miller
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  FMRI group analysis combining effect estimates and their variances.

Authors:  Gang Chen; Ziad S Saad; Audrey R Nath; Michael S Beauchamp; Robert W Cox
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Brain responses to erotic and other emotional stimuli in breast cancer survivors with and without distress about low sexual desire: a preliminary fMRI study.

Authors:  Francesco Versace; Jeffrey M Engelmann; Edward F Jackson; Aurelija Slapin; Kristin M Cortese; Therese B Bevers; Leslie R Schover
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.978

6.  A hierarchical model for simultaneous detection and estimation in multi-subject fMRI studies.

Authors:  David Degras; Martin A Lindquist
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Toward a multisubject analysis of neural connectivity.

Authors:  C J Oates; L Costa; T E Nichols
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.026

Review 8.  A comprehensive review of group level model performance in the presence of heteroscedasticity: Can a single model control Type I errors in the presence of outliers?

Authors:  Jeanette A Mumford
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-12-25       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  The coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging data.

Authors:  Pantelis Samartsidis; Silvia Montagna; Thomas E Nichols; Timothy D Johnson
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 2.901

10.  Dynamic and static contributions of the cerebrovasculature to the resting-state BOLD signal.

Authors:  Sungho Tak; Danny J J Wang; Jonathan R Polimeni; Lirong Yan; J Jean Chen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.