1 / 22

Practical Aspects of Imaging Source Reconstruction in the Bayesian Framework

This presentation discusses practical aspects of imaging source reconstruction in the Bayesian framework, including selecting data, time windows, meshes and forward models, inversion schemes, group inversion, sensor fusion, fMRI priors, and selecting time windows for contrasts. The trade-off between individual accuracy and group consistency is also explored, as well as the use of statistics and fMRI priors in source analysis.

roycooper
Download Presentation

Practical Aspects of Imaging Source Reconstruction in the Bayesian Framework

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. Practical aspects of… Imaging Source Reconstruction in the Bayesian Framework Jason Taylor MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (CBU) Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (CamCAN) 19 January 2011 | Brussels | Thanks to Rik Henson & the CBU MEG community

  2. Selecting data (evoked/induced) & time-window (epoch/window) Meshes and Forward Models (template? resolution?) Inversion schemes (IID / MSP / other) Group Inversion, Sensor Fusion, fMRI priors Selecting time-window(s) for contrasts Statistcs Choices, choices

  3. Neuromag Mags/Grads (No EEG) N=18 480 trials: 50% words, 50% pseudowords Respond: Word/Non-word with button press, hand counterbalanced Test Case: MEG Lexical Decision Data Taylor & Henson, submitted

  4. Mags Grads (RMS)

  5. The Entire Analysis Pipeline (Taylor & Henson, submitted)

  6. SPM allows you to invert either trials (epochs) or averages ->Decide whether interested in evoked or induced (total) ->for induced: covariance is accumulated over trials ->allows selection of frequency window of interest -- note: trial inversion can by memory-intensive if many trials Selecting data to invert

  7. (see Christoph’s talk this morning) ->For the present data, used inverse-normalised template cortical mesh (~7000 points) + individually defined inner-skull & scalp mesh BEM Meshes and Forward Models MSP IID Can(ctx) +Ind(skull) Individual (all) Henson et al, 2009, NImage

  8. Model comparison approach: Don’t need to decide a priori ->But consider: - Expect focal or distributed sources? (MSP better captures focal; IID more appropriate for distributed?) - Individual accuracy vs. group consistency? (Maximising individual accuracy may come at the expense of consistency over subjects – if localisation/anatomy is variable) - Distributional assumptions of stats? (Sparse solutions tend not to be Gaussian - recall stats talk) Inversion scheme (MSP, IID, …)

  9. Model comparison approach also works for Individual vs. Group, and for the addition of priors from e.g. fMRI To compare Separate Sensor vs Fusion inversions, however, the data have changed, so model comparison does not apply Group Inversion, Sensor Fusion, etc. Group: Litvak & Friston, 2008, Nimage Fusion: Henson et al, 2009, NImage

  10. Step 1: Individual subject/sensor inversions Taylor & Henson, submitted

  11. Step 2: Fusion of Sensor Types Taylor & Henson, submitted

  12. fMRI priors Taylor & Henson, submitted

  13. MSP >> IID (note difference in scales between two plots) • Group inversion doesn’t affect IID (nothing to optimise); • Group inversion decreases (though n.s.) MSP model evidence (at individual level); trade-off of individual accuracy and group consistency • (3) fMRI priors improve IID but not MSP (presumably fMRI blobs already covered by patches in MSP) Taylor & Henson, submitted

  14. Our approach: Use sensor stats to constrain/inform source analysis ->Identify time-windows of interest ->divide into sub-windows based on hierarchical cluster analysis Selecting time-windows for contrasts

  15. Taylor & Henson, submitted

  16. Taylor & Henson, submitted

  17. Taylor & Henson, submitted

  18. Discussed yesterday: Sparse source images tend not to be Gaussian (e.g., MSP) SPMs, PPMs, SnPMs Trade-off?: individual accuracy vs. group consistency Statistics

  19. fMRI priors When several fMRI (or other) priors are entered separately, each may be up- or down-weighted Different priors may be endorsed for different subjects Group optimisation reduces these inter-subject differences Taylor & Henson, submitted

  20. Discussed yesterday: Sparse source images tend not to be Gaussian (e.g., MSP) Also yesterday: SPMs, PPMs, SnPMs Trade-off?: individual accuracy vs. group consistency Factorise time: allows inferences about emergence/disappearance of effects Statistics

  21. Condition X Time-Window Interactions Taylor & Henson, submitted

  22. - The End - • Thanks!

More Related