1 / 19

Multi-Group Functional MRI Analysis Using Statistical Activation Priors

Multi-Group Functional MRI Analysis Using Statistical Activation Priors. Deepti Bathula, Larry Staib, Hemant Tagare, Xenios Papademetris, Bob Schultz, Jim Duncan Image Processing & Analysis Group Yale University MICCAI 2009 fMRI Workshop. TexPoint fonts used in EMF.

prema
Download Presentation

Multi-Group Functional MRI Analysis Using Statistical Activation Priors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Multi-Group Functional MRI Analysis Using Statistical Activation Priors Deepti Bathula, Larry Staib, Hemant Tagare, Xenios Papademetris, Bob Schultz, Jim Duncan Image Processing & Analysis Group Yale University MICCAI 2009 fMRI Workshop TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAAAAAAAAA

  2. Introduction • Functional MRI Experiments • Relationships between brain structure and function across subjects • Infer differences between populations • Success relies on accurate assessment of individual brain activity • Functional MRI Analysis • fMRI data has poor signal-to-noise ratio • Leads to false detection of task-related activity • Requires signal processing techniques

  3. Literature Review • Salli, et al.,“Contextual clustering for analysis of fMRI data”(IEEE TMI, 2001) • Solo, et al.,“A signal estimation approach to Functional MRI”(IEEE TMI, 2001) • Descombes, et al., “Spatio-temporal fMRI analysis using Markov Random Fields”(IEEE TMI, 1998) • Goutte,et al.,“On Clustering Time Series”, (NeuroImage, 1999) • Ou & Golland, “From spatial regularization to anatomical priors in fMRI analysis”(IPMI, 2005) • Kiebel, et al., “Anatomically informed basis functions” (NeuroImage, 2000) • Flandin & Penny, “Bayesian fMRI data analysis with sparse spatial basis function priors” (NeuroImage, 2007)

  4. Statistical Activation Priors • Inspired by statistical shape priors in image segmentation • Learn brain activation patterns (strength, shape and location) from training data • Define functionally informed priors for improved analysis of new subjects • Compensate for low SNR by inducing sensitivity to task-related regions of the brain • Demonstrated to be more robust than spatio-temporal regularization priors (Bathula, MICCAI08)

  5. Multi-Group fMRI Analysis • Issues related to training-based priors • Studies with known group classification • Priors from individual groups or mixed pool? • Studies where existence of sub-groups is unknown • How does a prior from mixed population perform? • Current work investigates • Application of statistical activation priors • Evaluation of statistical learning techniques • Principal & Independent Component Analysis • Performance compared with GLM based methods

  6. β-maps Training Images GLM Design Matrix (X) Subspace (S) Time-Series (Y) GLM Y = X β + E Prior (β) PCA/ICA Temporal Model Test Image • Low Dimensional Spatial Model Estimation Functionally Informed Schematic – Statistical Activation Priors (Align in Tailarach coordinates)

  7. time series data agreement prior weight prior term Bayesian Formulation • Maximum Likelihood Estimate (ML) • No prior information • General Linear Model (GLM) • Maximum A Posteriori Estimate (MAP) Ө = { B, Other hyper-parameters}

  8. Likelihood Model y – fMRI time series signal β – Regression coefficient vector X – Design matrix ε – Decomposition residuals λ – Noise precision • Temporal Modeling • Linear combination of explanatory variables and noise We desire to have (next slides): • Spatial coherency modeled into activation parameters • Focus on modeling spatial correlations • Can be extended to incorporate temporal correlations

  9. PCA finds directions of maximum variance ICA finds directions which maximize independence Prior Models – p(B) • Prior probability densities of activation patterns • Estimated from low dimensional feature spaces • Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Yang et al., MICCAI 2004) • Prior density estimation using eigenspace decomposition • Assumes Gaussian distribution of patterns (unimodal) • Tends to bias posterior estimate towards mean pattern • Independent Component Analysis (ICA) (Bathula et al., MICCAI 2008) • Source patterns are maximally, statistically independent • Does not impose any normality assumptions • Accounts for inter-subject variability in functional anatomy

  10. Student’s t-Test • Standard parametric test • Assumes normal distribution • Not robust to outliers • Lack of sensitivity • Wilcoxon’s Test • Nonparametric alternative • No normality assumption • Better sensitivity/robustness tradeoff Group Test Statistics

  11. Young Male Adult (Typical) Young Male Adult (Autism) Attention Modulation Experiment (Faces Vs Houses) • Experiment (all done in Talairach Space) • Scanner • Siemens Trio 3T • Subjects • 11 Healthy Adults • 10 Normal Kids • 18 Autism Subjects • N1 = 21 Control • N2 = 18 Autism • Resolution • 3.5mm3 • Repeats • 5 Runs with 140 time samples per run • Red/Yellow – Fusiform Face Area (FFA) (circled) • Blue/Purple – Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA) Source: Robert T. Schultz, Int. J. Developmental Neuroscience 23 (2005) 125–141

  12. Smoothed-GLM (2-Run) (FWHM = 6mm) Structural Scan (FFA, PPA, STS, IPS, SLG) Ground Truth (GLM-5 Run) GLM (2 Run) Mixed ICA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Group ICA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Mixed PCA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Group PCA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Group Activation Maps – Controls(Group prior =normals only; mixed= both normals and Autism) Student’s t-Test(leave-one-out analysis) (p < 0.01, uncorrected)

  13. GLM (2 Run) Group ICA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Group PCA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Structural Scan (FFA, PPA, STS, IPS, SLG) Ground Truth (GLM-5 Run) Smoothed-GLM (2-Run) (FWHM = 6mm) Mixed PCA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Mixed ICA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Group Activation Maps - ControlsWilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test (p < 0.01, uncorrected)

  14. GLM (2 Run) Group ICA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Group PCA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Structural Scan (FFA, PPA, STS, IPS, SLG) Ground Truth (GLM-5 Run) Smoothed-GLM (2-Run) (FWHM = 6mm) Mixed PCA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Mixed ICA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Group Activation Maps - Autism(Group prior=Autism only; mixed= both normals and Autism)Student’s t-Test (p < 0.01, uncorrected)

  15. Group ICA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) Group PCA (2-Run) (K = 8, α = 0.8) GLM (2 Run) Structural Scan (FFA, PPA, STS, IPS, SLG) Ground Truth (GLM-5 Run) Smoothed-GLM (2-Run) (FWHM = 6mm) Mixed PCA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Mixed ICA (2-Run) (K = 13, α = 0.7) Group Activation Maps - AutismWilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test (p < 0.01, uncorrected)

  16. Multi-Group Experiment(compare 5-run beta maps to 2-run estimates across all 21 normal + 18 Autism subjects)Quantitative Analysis

  17. Conclusions • Training based prior models • Significant improvement in estimation • Compensate for low SNR by inducing sensitivity to task-related regions of the brain • Potential for reducing acquisition time in test subjects • Multi-Group fMRI Analysis • Group-wise priors more effective than mixed priors • PCA regresses to mean activation pattern • ICA accounts for inter-subject variability • ICA more suitable for studies with unknown sub-groups

  18. Future Work • Integrating temporal correlations into the Bayesian framework • More effective method for exploiting anatomical information • Nonlinear methods for more plausible modeling of fMRI data • Functional connectivity analysis using statistical prior information

  19. Thank You!

More Related