1 / 38

Effect Estimation & Testing

Effect Estimation & Testing. Thomas Nichols, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Biostatistics http://www.sph.umich.edu/~nichols fMRI Course OHBM 2004. Outline. Data Modeling General Linear Model GLM Issues Statistical Inference Statistic Images & Hypothesis Testing

Download Presentation

Effect Estimation & Testing

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. Effect Estimation& Testing Thomas Nichols, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Biostatistics http://www.sph.umich.edu/~nichols fMRI Course OHBM 2004

  2. Outline • Data Modeling • General Linear Model • GLM Issues • Statistical Inference • Statistic Images & Hypothesis Testing • Multiple Testing Problem

  3. Basic fMRI Example • Data at one voxel • Rest vs.passive word listening • Is there an effect?

  4. A Linear Model • “Linear” in parameters 1&2 error = + + b1 b2 Time e x1 x2 Intensity

  5. Linear model, in image form… = + +

  6. … in image matrix form…  = + 

  7. = + Y … in matrix form. GeneralLinear Model Really general • Correlation • ANOVA • ANCOVA N: Number of scans, p: Number of regressors

  8. Linear Model Issues • Signal Predictors • Block • Event-related • Nuisance Predictors • Drift • Motion parameters • Autocorrelation • Random effects

  9. Temporal AutocorrelationIn Brief

  10. Random Effects Models • GLM has only one source of randomness • Residual error • But people are another source of error • Everyone activates somewhat differently…

  11. Distribution of each subject’s estimated effect Fixed vs.RandomEffects Subj. 1 Subj. 2 • Fixed Effects • Intra-subject variation suggests all these subjects different from zero • Random Effects • Intersubject variation suggests population not very different from zero Subj. 3 Subj. 4 Subj. 5 Subj. 6 0 Distribution of population effect

  12. Random Effects for fMRI • Summary Statistic Approach • Easy • Create contrast images for each subject • Analyze contrast images with one-sample t • Limited • Only allows one scan per subject • Assumes balanced designs and homogeneous meas. error. • Full Mixed Effects Analysis • Harder • Requires iterative fitting • REML to estimate inter- and intra subject variance • SPM2 & FSL3 implement this differently • Very flexible

  13. Random Effects for fMRIRandom vs. Fixed • Fixed isn’t “wrong”, just usually isn’t of interest • If it is sufficient to say “I can see this effect in this cohort”then fixed effects are OK • If need to say “If I were to sample a new cohort from the population I would get the same result”then random effects are needed

  14. c’ = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Statistic Images • Contrast • A linear combination of parameters • Truth: c’ Estimate: contrast ofestimatedparameters T = T = varianceestimate s2c’(X’X)-1c

  15. P-val Hypothesis Testing • Assume Null Hypothesis of no signal • Given that there is nosignal, how likely is our measured T? • P-value measures this • Probability of obtaining Tas large or larger •  level • Acceptable false positive rate T

  16. t > 2.5 t > 4.5 t > 0.5 t > 1.5 t > 3.5 t > 5.5 t > 6.5 Hypothesis Testing in fMRI • Massively Univariate Modeling • Fit model at each voxel • Create statistic images of effect • Which of 100,000 voxels are significant? • =0.05  5,000 false positives!

  17. MCP Solutions:Measuring False Positives • Familywise Error Rate (FWER) • Familywise Error • Existence of one or more false positives • FWER is probability of familywise error • False Discovery Rate (FDR) • R voxels declared active, V falsely so • Observed false discovery rate: V/R • FDR = E(V/R)

  18. FWER MCP Solutions • Bonferroni • Maximum Distribution Methods • Random Field Theory • Permutation

  19. FWER MCP Solutions • Bonferroni • Maximum Distribution Methods • Random Field Theory • Permutation

  20. FWER MCP Solutions: Controlling FWER w/ Max • FWER & distribution of maximum FWER = P(FWE) = P(One or more voxels u | Ho) = P(Max voxel u | Ho) • 100(1-)%ile of max distn controls FWER FWER = P(Max voxel u | Ho)   u

  21. FWER MCP Solutions:Random Field Theory • Euler Characteristic u • Topological Measure • #blobs - #holes • At high thresholds,just counts blobs • FWER = P(Max voxel u | Ho) = P(One or more blobs | Ho) P(u  1 | Ho) E(u| Ho) Threshold Random Field Suprathreshold Sets

  22. Random Field Intuition • Corrected P-value for voxel value t Pc = P(max T > t) E(t) () ||1/2t2 exp(-t2/2) • Statistic value t increases • Pc decreases (of course!) • Search volume increases • Pc increases (more severe MCP) • Smoothness increases (||1/2 smaller) • Pc decreases (less severe MCP)

  23. Lattice ImageData  Continuous Random Field Random Field TheoryStrengths & Weaknesses • Closed form results for E(u) • Z, t, F, Chi-Squared Continuous RFs • Results depend only on volume & smoothness • Smoothness assumed known • Sufficient smoothness required • Results are for continuous random fields • Multivariate normality • Several layers of approximations

  24. FWER MCP Solutions • Bonferroni • Maximum Distribution Methods • Random Field Theory • Permutation

  25. 5% Parametric Null Distribution 5% Nonparametric Null Distribution Nonparametric Permutation Test • Parametric methods • Assume distribution ofstatistic under nullhypothesis • Nonparametric methods • Use data to find distribution of statisticunder null hypothesis • Any statistic!

  26. 5% Parametric Null Max Distribution 5% Nonparametric Null Max Distribution Controlling FWER: Permutation Test • Parametric methods • Assume distribution ofmax statistic under nullhypothesis • Nonparametric methods • Use data to find distribution of max statisticunder null hypothesis • Any max statistic!

  27. Permutation TestStrengths • Requires only assumption of exchangeability • Under Ho, distribution unperturbed by permutation • Subjects are exchangeable • Under Ho, each subject’s A/B labels can be flipped • fMRI scans not exchangeable under Ho • Due to temporal autocorrelation • Need to de-correlate, then permute(Brammer, Bullmore et al, 1997)

  28. Permutation TestLimitations • Computational Intensity • Analysis repeated for each relabeling • Not so bad on modern hardware • No analysis discussed below took more than 3 hours • Implementation Generality • Each experimental design type needs unique code to generate permutations • Not so bad for population inference with t-tests

  29. Measuring False Positives • Familywise Error Rate (FWER) • Familywise Error • Existence of one or more false positives • FWER is probability of familywise error • False Discovery Rate (FDR) • R voxels declared active, V falsely so • Observed false discovery rate: V/R • FDR = E(V/R)

  30. False Discovery RateIllustration: Noise Signal Signal+Noise

  31. 11.3% 11.3% 12.5% 10.8% 11.5% 10.0% 10.7% 11.2% 10.2% 9.5% 6.7% 10.5% 12.2% 8.7% 10.4% 14.9% 9.3% 16.2% 13.8% 14.0% Control of Per Comparison Rate at 10% Percentage of Null Pixels that are False Positives Control of Familywise Error Rate at 10% FWE Occurrence of Familywise Error Control of False Discovery Rate at 10% Percentage of Activated Pixels that are False Positives

  32. p(i) i/V q Controlling FDR:Benjamini & Hochberg • Select desired limit q on E(FDR) • Order p-values, p(1)p(2) ...  p(V) • Let r be largest i such that • Reject all hypotheses corresponding top(1), ... , p(r). 1 p(i) p-value i/V q 0 0 1 i/V

  33. Active ... ... yes Baseline ... ... D UBKDA N XXXXX no Example – Working Memory • fMRI Study of Working Memory • 12 subjects, block design Marshuetz et al (2000) • Item Recognition • Active:View five letters, 2s pause, view probe letter, respond • Baseline: View XXXXX, 2s pause, view Y or N, respond • Second Level RFX • Difference image, A-B constructedfor each subject • One sample t test Skip

  34. Example – Working MemoryRFT Result • Threshold • S = 110,776 • 2  2  2 voxels5.1  5.8  6.9 mmFWHM • u = 9.870 • Result • 5 voxels above the threshold -log10 p-value

  35. Permutation Distribution Maximum t Example – Working MemoryNon-Parametric Result • Threshold • u = 7.67 • Result • 58 voxels above the threshold -log10 p-value

  36. Example – Working MemoryFDR Result • FDR Threshold • u = 3.83 • Result • 3,073 voxels abovethreshold

  37. Conclusions • Must account for multiple comparisons • FWER • Random Field Theory • Simple to apply, but heavy on assumptions • Nonparametric • Exact, but requires more computation • FDR • More lenient measure of false positives – more powerful • Sociological calibration still underway (5%? 1%? 0.1%?)

  38. Thanks • Slide help • Stefan Keibel, Rik Henson, JB Poline, Andrew Holmes

More Related