Group analyses of fMRI data

1. Group analyses of fMRI data Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich Functional Imaging Laboratory (FIL) Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly Will Penny Methods & models for fMRI data analysis26 November 2008

2. Overview of SPM Statistical parametric map (SPM) Design matrix Image time-series Kernel Realignment Smoothing General linear model Gaussian field theory Statistical inference Normalisation p <0.05 Template Parameter estimates

3. Why hierachical models? fMRI, single subject EEG/MEG, single subject time fMRI, multi-subject ERP/ERF, multi-subject Hierarchical models for all imaging data!

4. model specification parameter estimation hypothesis statistic Reminder: voxel-wise time series analysis! Time Time BOLD signal single voxel time series SPM

5. The model: voxel-wise GLM X + y = • Model is specified by • Design matrix X • Assumptions about e N: number of scans p: number of regressors The design matrix embodies all available knowledge about experimentally controlled factors and potential confounds.

6. GLM assumes Gaussian “spherical” (i.i.d.) errors Examples for non-sphericity: sphericity = iid:error covariance is scalar multiple of identity matrix: Cov(e) = 2I non-identity non-independence

7. Multiple covariance components at 1st level enhanced noise model error covariance components Q and hyperparameters V Q2 Q1 1 + 2 = Estimation of hyperparameters  with ReML (restricted maximum likelihood).

8. t-statistic based on ML estimates c = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 For brevity: ReML-estimates

9. Group level inference: fixed effects (FFX) • assumes that parameters are “fixed properties of the population” • all variability is only intra-subject variability, e.g. due to measurement errors • Laird & Ware (1982): the probability distribution of the data has the same form for each individual and the same parameters • In SPM: simply concatenate the data and the design matrices  lots of power (proportional to number of scans), but results are only valid for the group studied, can’t be generalized to the population

10. Group level inference: random effects (RFX) • assumes that model parameters are probabilistically distributed in the population • variance is due to inter-subject variability • Laird & Ware (1982): the probability distribution of the data has the same form for each individual, but the parameters vary across individuals • In SPM: hierarchical model much less power (proportional to number of subjects), but results can (in principle) be generalized to the population

11. Recommended reading Linear hierarchical models Mixed effect models

12. Linear hierarchical model Multiple variance components at each level Hierarchical model At each level, distribution of parameters is given by level above. What we don’t know: distribution of parameters and variance parameters.

13. Example: Two-level model = + + = Second level First level

14. Two-level model random effects random effects Friston et al. 2002, NeuroImage

15. Mixed effects analysis Non-hierarchical model Estimating 2nd level effects Variance components at 2nd level between-level non-sphericity Additionally: within-level non-sphericity at both levels! Friston et al. 2005, NeuroImage

16. Estimation EM-algorithm E-step M-step Assume, at voxel j: Friston et al. 2002, NeuroImage

17. Algorithmic equivalence Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) Hierarchical model EM = PEB = ReML Single-level model Restricted Maximum Likelihood (ReML)

18. Mixed effects analysis Summary statistics Step 1 EM approach Step 2 Friston et al. 2005, NeuroImage

19. Practical problems Most 2-level models are just too big to compute. And even if, it takes a long time! Moreover, sometimes we are only interested in one specific effect and do not want to model all the data. Is there a fast approximation?

20. Summary statistics approach First level Second level DataDesign MatrixContrast Images SPM(t) One-sample t-test @ 2nd level

21. Validity of the summary statistics approach The summary stats approach is exact if for each session/subject: Within-session covariance the same First-level design the same One contrast per session All other cases: Summary stats approach seems to be fairly robust against typical violations.

22. Reminder: sphericity Scans „sphericity“ means: i.e. Scans

23. 2nd level: non-sphericity Error covariance • Errors are independent • but not identical: • e.g. different groups (patients, controls) • Errors are not independent • and not identical: • e.g. repeated measures for each subject (like multiple basis functions)

24. Example 1: non-indentical & independent errors Auditory Presentation (SOA = 4 secs) of (i) words and (ii) words spoken backwards Stimuli: e.g. “Book” and “Koob” (i) 12 control subjects (ii) 11 blind subjects Subjects: Scanning: fMRI, 250 scans per subject, block design Noppeney et al.

25. Controls Blinds 1st level: 2nd level:

26. Example 2: non-indentical & non-independent errors Stimuli: Auditory Presentation (SOA = 4 secs) of words Subjects: (i) 12 control subjects 1. Words referred to body motion. Subjects decided if the body movement was slow. 2. Words referred to auditory features. Subjects decided if the sound was usually loud 3. Words referred to visual features. Subjects decided if the visual form was curved. 4. Words referred to hand actions. Subjects decided if the hand action involved a tool. fMRI, 250 scans per subject, block design Scanning: What regions are affected by the semantic content of the words? Question: Noppeney et al.

27. Repeated measures ANOVA 1st level: 1.Motion 2.Sound 3.Visual 4.Action ? = ? = ? = 2nd level:

28. Repeated measures ANOVA 1st level: 1.Motion 2.Sound 3.Visual 4.Action ? = ? = ? = 2nd level:

29. Practical conclusions • Linear hierarchical models are general enough for typical multi-subject imaging data (PET, fMRI, EEG/MEG). • Summary statistics are robust approximation to mixed-effects analysis. • Use mixed-effects model only, if seriously in doubt about validity of summary statistics approach. • RFX: If not using multi-dimensional contrasts at 2nd level (F-tests), use a series of 1-sample t-tests at the 2nd level. • To minimize number of variance components to be estimated at 2nd level, compute relevant contrasts at 1st level and use simple test at 2nd level.

30. Thank you