Cargando…

Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses

In Kilner et al. [Kilner, J.M., Kiebel, S.J., Friston, K.J., 2005. Applications of random field theory to electrophysiology. Neurosci. Lett. 374, 174–178.] we described a fairly general analysis of induced responses—in electromagnetic brain signals—using the summary statistic approach and statistica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Litvak, Vladimir, Jha, Ashwani, Flandin, Guillaume, Friston, Karl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academic Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22982359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.014
_version_ 1782252580740530176
author Litvak, Vladimir
Jha, Ashwani
Flandin, Guillaume
Friston, Karl
author_facet Litvak, Vladimir
Jha, Ashwani
Flandin, Guillaume
Friston, Karl
author_sort Litvak, Vladimir
collection PubMed
description In Kilner et al. [Kilner, J.M., Kiebel, S.J., Friston, K.J., 2005. Applications of random field theory to electrophysiology. Neurosci. Lett. 374, 174–178.] we described a fairly general analysis of induced responses—in electromagnetic brain signals—using the summary statistic approach and statistical parametric mapping. This involves localising induced responses—in peristimulus time and frequency—by testing for effects in time–frequency images that summarise the response of each subject to each trial type. Conventionally, these time–frequency summaries are estimated using post‐hoc averaging of epoched data. However, post‐hoc averaging of this sort fails when the induced responses overlap or when there are multiple response components that have variable timing within each trial (for example stimulus and response components associated with different reaction times). In these situations, it is advantageous to estimate response components using a convolution model of the sort that is standard in the analysis of fMRI time series. In this paper, we describe one such approach, based upon ordinary least squares deconvolution of induced responses to input functions encoding the onset of different components within each trial. There are a number of fundamental advantages to this approach: for example; (i) one can disambiguate induced responses to stimulus onsets and variably timed responses; (ii) one can test for the modulation of induced responses—over peristimulus time and frequency—by parametric experimental factors and (iii) one can gracefully handle confounds—such as slow drifts in power—by including them in the model. In what follows, we consider optimal forms for convolution models of induced responses, in terms of impulse response basis function sets and illustrate the utility of deconvolution estimators using simulated and real MEG data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3518783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Academic Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35187832013-01-01 Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses Litvak, Vladimir Jha, Ashwani Flandin, Guillaume Friston, Karl Neuroimage Technical Note In Kilner et al. [Kilner, J.M., Kiebel, S.J., Friston, K.J., 2005. Applications of random field theory to electrophysiology. Neurosci. Lett. 374, 174–178.] we described a fairly general analysis of induced responses—in electromagnetic brain signals—using the summary statistic approach and statistical parametric mapping. This involves localising induced responses—in peristimulus time and frequency—by testing for effects in time–frequency images that summarise the response of each subject to each trial type. Conventionally, these time–frequency summaries are estimated using post‐hoc averaging of epoched data. However, post‐hoc averaging of this sort fails when the induced responses overlap or when there are multiple response components that have variable timing within each trial (for example stimulus and response components associated with different reaction times). In these situations, it is advantageous to estimate response components using a convolution model of the sort that is standard in the analysis of fMRI time series. In this paper, we describe one such approach, based upon ordinary least squares deconvolution of induced responses to input functions encoding the onset of different components within each trial. There are a number of fundamental advantages to this approach: for example; (i) one can disambiguate induced responses to stimulus onsets and variably timed responses; (ii) one can test for the modulation of induced responses—over peristimulus time and frequency—by parametric experimental factors and (iii) one can gracefully handle confounds—such as slow drifts in power—by including them in the model. In what follows, we consider optimal forms for convolution models of induced responses, in terms of impulse response basis function sets and illustrate the utility of deconvolution estimators using simulated and real MEG data. Academic Press 2013-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3518783/ /pubmed/22982359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.014 Text en © 2013 Elsevier Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) license
spellingShingle Technical Note
Litvak, Vladimir
Jha, Ashwani
Flandin, Guillaume
Friston, Karl
Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title_full Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title_fullStr Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title_full_unstemmed Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title_short Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
title_sort convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22982359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.014
work_keys_str_mv AT litvakvladimir convolutionmodelsforinducedelectromagneticresponses
AT jhaashwani convolutionmodelsforinducedelectromagneticresponses
AT flandinguillaume convolutionmodelsforinducedelectromagneticresponses
AT fristonkarl convolutionmodelsforinducedelectromagneticresponses