Literature DB >> 33561125

Revisiting the importance of model fitting for model-based fMRI: It does matter in computational psychiatry.

Kentaro Katahira1, Asako Toyama1.   

Abstract

Computational modeling has been applied for data analysis in psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. One of its important uses is to infer the latent variables underlying behavior by which researchers can evaluate corresponding neural, physiological, or behavioral measures. This feature is especially crucial for computational psychiatry, in which altered computational processes underlying mental disorders are of interest. For instance, several studies employing model-based fMRI-a method for identifying brain regions correlated with latent variables-have shown that patients with mental disorders (e.g., depression) exhibit diminished neural responses to reward prediction errors (RPEs), which are the differences between experienced and predicted rewards. Such model-based analysis has the drawback that the parameter estimates and inference of latent variables are not necessarily correct-rather, they usually contain some errors. A previous study theoretically and empirically showed that the error in model-fitting does not necessarily cause a serious error in model-based fMRI. However, the study did not deal with certain situations relevant to psychiatry, such as group comparisons between patients and healthy controls. We developed a theoretical framework to explore such situations. We demonstrate that the parameter-misspecification can critically affect the results of group comparison. We demonstrate that even if the RPE response in patients is completely intact, a spurious difference to healthy controls is observable. Such a situation occurs when the ground-truth learning rate differs between groups but a common learning rate is used, as per previous studies. Furthermore, even if the parameters are appropriately fitted to individual participants, spurious group differences in RPE responses are observable when the model lacks a component that differs between groups. These results highlight the importance of appropriate model-fitting and the need for caution when interpreting the results of model-based fMRI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33561125      PMCID: PMC7899379          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008738

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol        ISSN: 1553-734X            Impact factor:   4.475


  58 in total

1.  Effects of depression on reward-based decision making and variability of action in probabilistic learning.

Authors:  Yoshihiko Kunisato; Yasumasa Okamoto; Kazutaka Ueda; Keiichi Onoda; Go Okada; Shinpei Yoshimura; Shin-ichi Suzuki; Kazuyuki Samejima; Shigeto Yamawaki
Journal:  J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry       Date:  2012-05-31

Review 2.  Reward representations and reward-related learning in the human brain: insights from neuroimaging.

Authors:  John P O'Doherty
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 3.  The cost of dichotomising continuous variables.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Patrick Royston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

4.  A Model-Based fMRI Analysis with Hierarchical Bayesian Parameter Estimation.

Authors:  Woo-Young Ahn; Adam Krawitz; Woojae Kim; Jerome R Busmeyer; Joshua W Brown
Journal:  J Neurosci Psychol Econ       Date:  2011-05

5.  Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans.

Authors:  Mathias Pessiglione; Ben Seymour; Guillaume Flandin; Raymond J Dolan; Chris D Frith
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-08-23       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Reinforcement learning signals in the human striatum distinguish learners from nonlearners during reward-based decision making.

Authors:  Tom Schönberg; Nathaniel D Daw; Daphna Joel; John P O'Doherty
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Dimensional psychiatry: reward dysfunction and depressive mood across psychiatric disorders.

Authors:  Claudia Hägele; Florian Schlagenhauf; Michael Rapp; Philipp Sterzer; Anne Beck; Felix Bermpohl; Meline Stoy; Andreas Ströhle; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen; Raymond J Dolan; Andreas Heinz
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-06-29       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data.

Authors:  Robert C Wilson; Anne Ge Collins
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Commentary: Altered learning under uncertainty in unmedicated mood and anxiety disorders.

Authors:  Motofumi Sumiya; Kentaro Katahira
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Association of Neural and Emotional Impacts of Reward Prediction Errors With Major Depression.

Authors:  Robb B Rutledge; Michael Moutoussis; Peter Smittenaar; Peter Zeidman; Tanja Taylor; Louise Hrynkiewicz; Jordan Lam; Nikolina Skandali; Jenifer Z Siegel; Olga T Ousdal; Gita Prabhu; Peter Dayan; Peter Fonagy; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 21.596

View more
  2 in total

1.  Sufficient reliability of the behavioral and computational readouts of a probabilistic reversal learning task.

Authors:  Maria Waltmann; Florian Schlagenhauf; Lorenz Deserno
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-02-15

Review 2.  Advances in modeling learning and decision-making in neuroscience.

Authors:  Anne G E Collins; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 7.853

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.