Cargando…
A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB
This paper provides a worked example of using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) to characterise inter-subject variability in neural circuitry (effective connectivity). It steps through an analysis in detail and provides a tutorial style explanation of the underlying...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Academic Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31226492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.032 |
_version_ | 1783446517330214912 |
---|---|
author | Zeidman, Peter Jafarian, Amirhossein Seghier, Mohamed L. Litvak, Vladimir Cagnan, Hayriye Price, Cathy J. Friston, Karl J. |
author_facet | Zeidman, Peter Jafarian, Amirhossein Seghier, Mohamed L. Litvak, Vladimir Cagnan, Hayriye Price, Cathy J. Friston, Karl J. |
author_sort | Zeidman, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | This paper provides a worked example of using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) to characterise inter-subject variability in neural circuitry (effective connectivity). It steps through an analysis in detail and provides a tutorial style explanation of the underlying theory and assumptions (i.e, priors). The analysis procedure involves specifying a hierarchical model with two or more levels. At the first level, state space models (DCMs) are used to infer the effective connectivity that best explains a subject's neuroimaging timeseries (e.g. fMRI, MEG, EEG). Subject-specific connectivity parameters are then taken to the group level, where they are modelled using a General Linear Model (GLM) that partitions between-subject variability into designed effects and additive random effects. The ensuing (Bayesian) hierarchical model conveys both the estimated connection strengths and their uncertainty (i.e., posterior covariance) from the subject to the group level; enabling hypotheses to be tested about the commonalities and differences across subjects. This approach can also finesse parameter estimation at the subject level, by using the group-level parameters as empirical priors. The preliminary first level (subject specific) DCM for fMRI analysis is covered in a companion paper. Here, we detail group-level analysis procedures that are suitable for use with data from any neuroimaging modality. This paper is accompanied by an example dataset, together with step-by-step instructions demonstrating how to reproduce the analyses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6711451 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Academic Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67114512019-10-15 A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB Zeidman, Peter Jafarian, Amirhossein Seghier, Mohamed L. Litvak, Vladimir Cagnan, Hayriye Price, Cathy J. Friston, Karl J. Neuroimage Article This paper provides a worked example of using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) to characterise inter-subject variability in neural circuitry (effective connectivity). It steps through an analysis in detail and provides a tutorial style explanation of the underlying theory and assumptions (i.e, priors). The analysis procedure involves specifying a hierarchical model with two or more levels. At the first level, state space models (DCMs) are used to infer the effective connectivity that best explains a subject's neuroimaging timeseries (e.g. fMRI, MEG, EEG). Subject-specific connectivity parameters are then taken to the group level, where they are modelled using a General Linear Model (GLM) that partitions between-subject variability into designed effects and additive random effects. The ensuing (Bayesian) hierarchical model conveys both the estimated connection strengths and their uncertainty (i.e., posterior covariance) from the subject to the group level; enabling hypotheses to be tested about the commonalities and differences across subjects. This approach can also finesse parameter estimation at the subject level, by using the group-level parameters as empirical priors. The preliminary first level (subject specific) DCM for fMRI analysis is covered in a companion paper. Here, we detail group-level analysis procedures that are suitable for use with data from any neuroimaging modality. This paper is accompanied by an example dataset, together with step-by-step instructions demonstrating how to reproduce the analyses. Academic Press 2019-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6711451/ /pubmed/31226492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.032 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Zeidman, Peter Jafarian, Amirhossein Seghier, Mohamed L. Litvak, Vladimir Cagnan, Hayriye Price, Cathy J. Friston, Karl J. A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title | A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title_full | A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title_fullStr | A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title_full_unstemmed | A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title_short | A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB |
title_sort | guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: second level analysis with peb |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31226492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.032 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zeidmanpeter aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT jafarianamirhossein aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT seghiermohamedl aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT litvakvladimir aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT cagnanhayriye aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT pricecathyj aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT fristonkarlj aguidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT zeidmanpeter guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT jafarianamirhossein guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT seghiermohamedl guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT litvakvladimir guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT cagnanhayriye guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT pricecathyj guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb AT fristonkarlj guidetogroupeffectiveconnectivityanalysispart2secondlevelanalysiswithpeb |