Literature DB >> 31330243

Robust nonparametric tests of general linear model coefficients: A comparison of permutation methods and test statistics.

Nathaniel E Helwig1.   

Abstract

Statistical inference in neuroimaging research often involves testing the significance of regression coefficients in a general linear model. In many applications, the researcher assumes a model of the form Y=α+Xβ+Zγ+ε, where Y is the observed brain signal, and X and Z contain explanatory variables that are thought to be related to the brain signal. The goal is to test the null hypothesis H0:β=0 with the nuisance parameters γ included in the model. Several nonparametric (permutation) methods have been proposed for this problem, and each method uses some variant of the F ratio as the test statistic. However, recent research suggests that the F ratio can produce invalid permutation tests of H0:β=0 when the ε terms are heteroscedastic (i.e., have non-constant variance), which can occur for a variety of reasons. This study compares the classic F test statistic to the robust W (Wald) test statistic using eight different permutation methods. The results reveal that permutation tests using the F ratio can produce accurate results when the errors are homoscedastic, but high false positive rates when the errors are heteroscedastic. In contrast, permutation tests using the W test statistic produced valid results when the errors were homoscedastic, and asymptotically valid results when the errors were heteroscedastic. In the situation with homoscedastic errors, permutation tests using the W statistic showed slightly reduced power compared to the F statistic, but the difference disappeared as the sample size n increased. Consequently, the W test statistic is recommended for robust nonparametric hypothesis tests of regression coefficients in neuroimaging research.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  General linear model; Neuroimaging; Permutation; Randomization; Robust statistics

Year:  2019        PMID: 31330243      PMCID: PMC6765412          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116030

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


  15 in total

1.  Does parametric fMRI analysis with SPM yield valid results? An empirical study of 1484 rest datasets.

Authors:  Anders Eklund; Mats Andersson; Camilla Josephson; Magnus Johannesson; Hans Knutsson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple-subject fMRI analysis.

Authors:  Tom Johnstone; Kathleen S Ores Walsh; Larry L Greischar; Andrew L Alexander; Andrew S Fox; Richard J Davidson; Terrence R Oakes
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 3.  Modalities, modes, and models in functional neuroimaging.

Authors:  Karl J Friston
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Event related potentials during object recognition tasks.

Authors:  X L Zhang; H Begleiter; B Porjesz; W Wang; A Litke
Journal:  Brain Res Bull       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 4.077

Review 5.  Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments.

Authors:  A P Holmes; R C Blair; J D Watson; I Ford
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 6.  Multiple testing corrections, nonparametric methods, and random field theory.

Authors:  Thomas E Nichols
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions.

Authors:  David Dekker; David Krackhardt; Tom A B Snijders
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 2.500

8.  Faster permutation inference in brain imaging.

Authors:  Anderson M Winkler; Gerard R Ridgway; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Thomas E Nichols; Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 9.  The Human Connectome Project: a data acquisition perspective.

Authors:  D C Van Essen; K Ugurbil; E Auerbach; D Barch; T E J Behrens; R Bucholz; A Chang; L Chen; M Corbetta; S W Curtiss; S Della Penna; D Feinberg; M F Glasser; N Harel; A C Heath; L Larson-Prior; D Marcus; G Michalareas; S Moeller; R Oostenveld; S E Petersen; F Prior; B L Schlaggar; S M Smith; A Z Snyder; J Xu; E Yacoub
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Non-parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging.

Authors:  Anderson M Winkler; Matthew A Webster; Jonathan C Brooks; Irene Tracey; Stephen M Smith; Thomas E Nichols
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 5.038

View more
  2 in total

1.  Latent classes of maladaptive personality traits exhibit differences in social processing.

Authors:  Lauren Hanegraaf; Jakob Hohwy; Antonio Verdejo-Garcia
Journal:  J Pers       Date:  2021-11-10

2.  Multiple testing correction over contrasts for brain imaging.

Authors:  Bianca A V Alberton; Thomas E Nichols; Humberto R Gamba; Anderson M Winkler
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 6.556

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.