Cargando…

Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis

We investigate the impact of decisions in the second-level (i.e., over subjects) inferential process in functional magnetic resonance imaging on (1) the balance between false positives and false negatives and on (2) the data-analytical stability, both proxies for the reproducibility of results. Seco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roels, Sanne P., Loeys, Tom, Moerkerke, Beatrijs
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26819578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1068434
_version_ 1782409223314866176
author Roels, Sanne P.
Loeys, Tom
Moerkerke, Beatrijs
author_facet Roels, Sanne P.
Loeys, Tom
Moerkerke, Beatrijs
author_sort Roels, Sanne P.
collection PubMed
description We investigate the impact of decisions in the second-level (i.e., over subjects) inferential process in functional magnetic resonance imaging on (1) the balance between false positives and false negatives and on (2) the data-analytical stability, both proxies for the reproducibility of results. Second-level analysis based on a mass univariate approach typically consists of 3 phases. First, one proceeds via a general linear model for a test image that consists of pooled information from different subjects. We evaluate models that take into account first-level (within-subjects) variability and models that do not take into account this variability. Second, one proceeds via inference based on parametrical assumptions or via permutation-based inference. Third, we evaluate 3 commonly used procedures to address the multiple testing problem: familywise error rate correction, False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction, and a two-step procedure with minimal cluster size. Based on a simulation study and real data we find that the two-step procedure with minimal cluster size results in most stable results, followed by the familywise error rate correction. The FDR results in most variable results, for both permutation-based inference and parametrical inference. Modeling the subject-specific variability yields a better balance between false positives and false negatives when using parametric inference.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4706870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47068702016-01-27 Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis Roels, Sanne P. Loeys, Tom Moerkerke, Beatrijs Comput Intell Neurosci Research Article We investigate the impact of decisions in the second-level (i.e., over subjects) inferential process in functional magnetic resonance imaging on (1) the balance between false positives and false negatives and on (2) the data-analytical stability, both proxies for the reproducibility of results. Second-level analysis based on a mass univariate approach typically consists of 3 phases. First, one proceeds via a general linear model for a test image that consists of pooled information from different subjects. We evaluate models that take into account first-level (within-subjects) variability and models that do not take into account this variability. Second, one proceeds via inference based on parametrical assumptions or via permutation-based inference. Third, we evaluate 3 commonly used procedures to address the multiple testing problem: familywise error rate correction, False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction, and a two-step procedure with minimal cluster size. Based on a simulation study and real data we find that the two-step procedure with minimal cluster size results in most stable results, followed by the familywise error rate correction. The FDR results in most variable results, for both permutation-based inference and parametrical inference. Modeling the subject-specific variability yields a better balance between false positives and false negatives when using parametric inference. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2015-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4706870/ /pubmed/26819578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1068434 Text en Copyright © 2016 Sanne P. Roels et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Roels, Sanne P.
Loeys, Tom
Moerkerke, Beatrijs
Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title_full Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title_fullStr Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title_short Evaluation of Second-Level Inference in fMRI Analysis
title_sort evaluation of second-level inference in fmri analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26819578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1068434
work_keys_str_mv AT roelssannep evaluationofsecondlevelinferenceinfmrianalysis
AT loeystom evaluationofsecondlevelinferenceinfmrianalysis
AT moerkerkebeatrijs evaluationofsecondlevelinferenceinfmrianalysis