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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zeidman, Peter, Jafarian, Amirhossein, Seghier, Mohamed L., Litvak, Vladimir, Cagnan, Hayriye, Price, Cathy J., Friston, Karl J.
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