1 / 43

SPM 2002

^. ^. Space of X. C2 ^. C3. Xb. Xb. Xb. ). (. ^. L C2 ^. C 1Y /S 1 2. P C1C3 ^ Xb. b. = (X’X) - X’Y =. C1. X =. C2. C1. C2. C3. C1. C 2Y /S 2 2. C2. C3 ^. Space X. L C1 ^. C1. Y. Xb. e. C2. C1 ^. L C2. C1. L C1. Space of X. C2. Xb. C2. P C1C2 ^ Xb. C1.

menke
Download Presentation

SPM 2002

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. ^ ^ Space of X C2^ C3 Xb Xb Xb ) ( ^ LC2^ C1Y/S12 PC1C3^Xb b = (X’X)-X’Y = C1 X = C2 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2Y/S22 C2 C3^ Space X LC1^ C1 Y Xb e C2 C1^ LC2 C1 LC1 Space of X C2 Xb C2 PC1C2^Xb C1 C1^ C3 C2^ PC1C3^Xb Space of X C3 Xb C3^ C1^ C1 C2 SPM 2002 A priori complicated … a posteriori very simple ! Jean-Baptiste Poline Orsay SHFJ-CEA

  2. SPM course - 2002LINEARMODELS and CONTRASTS T and F tests : (orthogonal projections) Hammering a Linear Model The RFT Use for Normalisation Jean-Baptiste Poline Orsay SHFJ-CEA www.madic.org

  3. Adjusted signal Your question: a contrast Statistical Map Uncorrected p-values Design matrix images Spatial filter • General Linear Model • Linear fit • statistical image realignement & coregistration Random Field Theory smoothing normalisation Anatomical Reference Corrected p-values

  4. Make sure we know all about the estimation (fitting) part .... Plan • Make sure we understand the testing procedures : t and F tests • A bad model ... And a better one • Correlation in our model : do we mind ? • A (nearly) real example

  5. One voxel = One test (t, F, ...) amplitude • General Linear Model • fitting • statistical image time Statistical image (SPM) Temporal series fMRI voxel time course

  6. 90 100 110 -10 0 10 90 100 110 -2 0 2 m a m = 100 a = 1 Fit the GLM Mean value voxel time series box-car reference function Regression example… + + =

  7. 90 100 110 90 100 110 -2 0 2 -2 0 2 m a m = 100 a = 5 Mean value error voxel time series box-car reference function Regression example… + + =

  8. …revisited : matrix form = a m + + error Ys m 1 a f(ts) es = + + ´ ´

  9. Box car regression: design matrix… data vector (voxel time series) parameters error vector design matrix a = ´ + m ´ Y = X b + e

  10. Add more reference functions ... Discrete cosine transform basis functions

  11. …design matrix = the betas (here : 1 to 9) parameters error vector design matrix data vector a m b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 = + ´ = + Y X b e

  12. S = s2 the squared values of the residuals number of time points minus the number of estimated betas Fitting the model = finding some estimate of the betas= minimising the sum of square of the error S2 raw fMRI time series adjusted for low Hz effects fitted box-car fitted “high-pass filter” residuals

  13. Summary ... • We put in our model regressors (or covariates) that represent how we think the signal is varying (of interest and of no interest alike) • Coefficients (=estimated parameters or betas) are found such that the sum of the weighted regressors is as close as possible to our data • As close as possible = such that the sum of square of the residuals is minimal • These estimated parameters (the “betas”) depend on the scaling of the regressors : keep in mind when comparing ! • The residuals, their sum of square, the tests (t,F), do not depend on the scaling of the regressors

  14. Plan • Make sure we all know about the estimation (fitting) part .... • Make sure we understand t and F tests • A bad model ... And a better one • Correlation in our model : do we mind ? • A (nearly) real example

  15. c’ = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 contrast ofestimatedparameters c’b T = T = varianceestimate s2c’(X’X)+c SPM{t} T test - one dimensional contrasts - SPM{t} A contrast= a linear combination of parameters: c´´b box-car amplitude > 0 ? = b1 > 0 ? (b1 : estimation of b1) = b1b2b3b4b5.... 1xb1+ 0xb2+ 0xb3+ 0xb4+ 0xb5+ . . . > 0 ? = test H0 : c´´ b > 0 ?

  16. ^ b Estimation [Y, X] [b, s] Y = X b + ee ~ s2 N(0,I)(Y : at one position) b = (X’X)+ X’Y (b = estimation of b) -> beta??? images e = Y - Xb(e = estimation of e) s2 = (e’e/(n - p)) (s = estimation of s, n: temps, p: paramètres) -> 1 image ResMS Test [b, s2, c] [c’b, t] Var(c’b) = s2c’(X’X)+c (compute for each contrast c) t = c’b / sqrt(s2c’(X’X)+c) (c’b -> images spm_con??? compute the t images -> images spm_t??? ) under the null hypothesis H0 : t ~ Student( df ) df = n-p contrast ofestimatedparameters How is this computed ? (t-test) varianceestimate

  17. additionalvarianceaccounted forby tested effects X0 F = errorvarianceestimate S02 > S2 F ~ (S02 - S2 ) /S2 Or this one ? F test (SPM{F}) : a reduced model or ... Tests multiple linear hypotheses : Does X1 model anything ? H0: True model is X0 X0 X1 S2 This model ?

  18. c’ = +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H0: True model is X0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 X0 X0 X1(b3-9) c’ = SPM{F} This model ? Or this one ? F test (SPM{F}) : a reduced model or ...multi-dimensional contrasts ? tests multiple linear hypotheses. Ex : does HPF model anything? test H0 : c´´ b = 0 ? H0: b3-9 = (0 0 0 0 ...)

  19. ^ s2 Estimation [Y, X] [b, s] Y=X b + ee ~ N(0, s2 I) Y=X0b0+ e0e0 ~ N(0, s02 I) X0 : X Reduced Estimation [Y, X0] [b0, s0] (not really like that ) b0 = (X0’X0)+ X0’Y e0 = Y - X0 b0(eà = estimation of eà) s20 = (e0’e0/(n - p0)) (sà = estimation of sà, n: time, pà: parameters) Test [b, s, c] [ess, F] F = (e0’e0 - e’e)/(p - p0) / s2 -> image (e0’e0 - e’e)/(p - p0) : spm_ess??? -> image of F : spm_F??? under the null hypothesis : F ~ F(df1,df2) p - p0 n-p additionalvariance accounted forby tested effects How is this computed ? (F-test) Error varianceestimate

  20. Plan • Make sure we all know about the estimation (fitting) part .... • Make sure we understand t and F tests • A bad model ... And a better one • Correlation in our model : do we mind ? • A (nearly) real example

  21. True signal and observed signal (---) Model (green, pic at 6sec) et TRUE signal (blue, pic at 3sec) Fitting (b1 = 0.2, mean = .11) Noise (still contains some signal) => Test for the green regressor non significant A bad model ...

  22. Residual Variance = 0.3 P( b1 > 0 ) = 0.1 (t-test) P( b1 = 0 ) = 0.2 (F-test) A bad model ... b1= 0.22 b2= 0.11 = + Y X b e

  23. True signal + observed signal Model (green and red) and true signal (blue ---) Red regressor : temporal derivative of the green regressor Global fit (blue) and partial fit (green & red) Adjusted and fitted signal Noise (a smaller variance) => Test of the green regressor significant => Test F very significant => Test of the red regressor very significant A « better » model ...

  24. Residual Var = 0.2 P( b1 > 0 ) = 0.07 (t test) P( [b1 b2] [0 0] ) = 0.000001 (F test) = A better model ... b1= 0.22 b2= 2.15 b3= 0.11 = + Y X b e

  25. Flexible models :Fourier Basis

  26. Flexible models : Gamma Basis

  27. Summary ... (2) • The residuals should be looked at ...(non random structure ?) • We rather test flexible models if there is little a priori  information, and precise ones with a lot a priori information • In general, use the F-tests to look for an overall effect, then look at the betas or the adjusted signal to characterise the origin of the signal • Interpreting the test on a single parameter (one function) can be very confusing: cf the delay or magnitude situation

  28. Plan • Make sure we all know about the estimation (fitting) part .... • Make sure we understand t and F tests • A bad model ... And a better one • Correlation in our model : do we mind ? • A (nearly) real example ?

  29. Model (green and red) Fitting (blue : global fit) Noise Correlation between regressors True signal

  30. Residual var. = 0.3 P( b1 > 0 ) = 0.08 (t test) P( b2 > 0 ) = 0.07 (t test) P( [b1 b2] 0 ) = 0.002 (F test) = Correlation between regressors b1= 0.79 b2= 0.85 b3 = 0.06 = + Y X b e

  31. Model (green and red) red regressor has been orthogonolised with respect to the green one = remove every thing that can correlate with the green regressor Fit Noise Correlation between regressors - 2 true signal

  32. Correlation between regressors -2 0.79 0.85 0.06 b1= 1.47 b2= 0.85 b3 = 0.06 Residual var. = 0.3 P( b1 > 0 ) = 0.0003 (t test) P( b2 > 0 ) = 0.07 (t test) P( [b1 b2] <> 0 ) = 0.002 (F test) = + Y X b e See « explore design »

  33. 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 Design orthogonality : « explore design » Black = completely correlated White = completely orthogonal Corr(1,1) Corr(1,2) Beware : when there is more than 2 regressors (C1,C2,C3...), you may think that there is little correlation (light grey) between them, but C1 + C2 + C3 may be correlated with C4 + C5

  34. Xb Y C2 C1 e Xb Space of X C2 C1 C2 Xb C2^ LC1^ C1 LC2 LC2 : test of C2 in the implicit ^ model LC1^ : test of C1 in the explicit ^ model ^ Implicit or explicit (^)decorrelation (or orthogonalisation) This GENERALISES when testing several regressors (F tests) See Andrade et al., NeuroImage, 1999

  35. ^ b ? 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 X = Y = Xb + e Mean Cond 1 Cond 2 “completely” correlated ... Mean = C1+C2 C2 C1 Parameters are not unique in general ! Some contrasts have no meaning: NON ESTIMABLE Example here : c’ = [1 0 0] is not estimable ( = no specific information in the first regressor); c’ = [1 -1 0] is estimable;

  36. Summary ... (3) • We are implicitly testing additional effect only, so we may miss the signal if there is some correlation in the model using t tests • Orthogonalisation is not generally needed - parameters and test on the changed regressor don’t change • It is always simpler (when possible !) to have orthogonal (uncorrelated) regressors • In case of correlation, use F-tests to see the overall significance. There is generally no way to decide where the « common » part shared by two regressors should be attributed to • In case of correlation and you need to orthogonolise a part of the design matrix, there is no need to re-fit a new model : the contrast only should change.

  37. Plan • Make sure we all know about the estimation (fitting) part .... • Make sure we understand t and F tests • A bad model ... And a better one • Correlation in our model : do we mind ? • A (nearly) real example

  38. C1 V A C1 C2 C3 V C2 C3 C1 C2 A C3 A real example   (almost !) Experimental Design Design Matrix Factorial design with 2 factors : modality and category 2 levels for modality (eg Visual/Auditory) 3 levels for category (eg 3 categories of words)

  39. Asking ouselves some questions ... V A C1 C2 C3 2 ways : 1- write a contrast c and test c’b = 0 2- select colons of X for the model under the null hypothesis. The contrast manager allows that Test C1 > C2 : c = [ 0 0 1 -1 0 0 ] Test V > A : c = [ 1 -1 0 0 0 0 ] Test the modality factor : c = ? Use 2- Test the category factor : c = ? Use 2- Test the interaction MxC ? • Design Matrix not orthogonal • Many contrasts are non estimable • Interactions MxC are not modeled

  40. Modelling the interactions

  41. Asking ouselves some questions ... C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 Test C1 > C2 : c = [ 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0] Test V > A : c = [ 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 0] Test the differences between categories : [ 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0] c = [ 0 0 1 1 -1 -1 0] V A V A V A Test everything in the category factor , leaves out modality : [ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0] c = [ 0 0 1 1 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0] Test the interaction MxC ? : [ 1 -1 -1 1 0 0 0] c = [ 0 0 1 -1 -1 1 0] [ 1 -1 0 0 -1 1 0] • Design Matrix orthogonal • All contrasts are estimable • Interactions MxC modelled • If no interaction ... ? Model too “big”

  42. Asking ouselves some questions ... With a more flexible model C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 V A V A V A Test C1 > C2 ? Test C1 different from C2 ? from c = [ 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0] to c = [ 1 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 1 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0] becomes an F test! Test V > A ? c = [ 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 0] is possible, but is OK only if the regressors coding for the delay are all equal

  43. We don’t use that one SPM course - 2002LINEARMODELS and CONTRASTS T and F tests : (orthogonal projections) Hammering a Linear Model The RFT Use for Normalisation Jean-Baptiste Poline Orsay SHFJ-CEA www.madic.org

More Related