@article {835, title = {Evaluating dynamic bivariate correlations in resting-state fMRI: a comparison study and a new approach.}, journal = {Neuroimage}, volume = {101}, year = {2014}, month = {2014 Nov 1}, pages = {531-46}, abstract = {

To date, most functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies have assumed that the functional connectivity (FC) between time series from distinct brain regions is constant across time. However, recently, there has been an increased interest in quantifying possible dynamic changes in FC during fMRI experiments, as it is thought that this may provide insight into the fundamental workings of brain networks. In this work we focus on the specific problem of estimating the dynamic behavior of pair-wise correlations between time courses extracted from two different regions of the brain. We critique the commonly used sliding-window technique, and discuss some alternative methods used to model volatility in the finance literature that could also prove to be useful in the neuroimaging setting. In particular, we focus on the Dynamic Conditional Correlation (DCC) model, which provides a model-based approach towards estimating dynamic correlations. We investigate the properties of several techniques in a series of simulation studies and find that DCC achieves the best overall balance between sensitivity and specificity in detecting dynamic changes in correlations. We also investigate its scalability beyond the bivariate case to demonstrate its utility for studying dynamic correlations between more than two brain regions. Finally, we illustrate its performance in an application to test-retest resting state fMRI data.

}, issn = {1095-9572}, doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.052}, author = {Lindquist, Martin A and Xu, Yuting and Nebel, Mary Beth and Caffo, Brain S} } @article {lindquist2012estimating, title = {Estimating and testing variance components in a multi-level GLM}, journal = {Neuroimage}, volume = {59}, number = {1}, year = {2012}, pages = {490{\textendash}501}, publisher = {Elsevier}, author = {Lindquist, Martin A and Spicer, Julie and Asllani, Iris and Wager, Tor D} } @article {844, title = {Estimating and testing variance components in a multi-level GLM.}, journal = {Neuroimage}, volume = {59}, year = {2012}, month = {2012 Jan 2}, pages = {490-501}, abstract = {

Most analysis of multi-subject fMRI data is concerned with determining whether there exists a significant population-wide {\textquoteright}activation{\textquoteright} in a comparison between two or more conditions. This is typically assessed by testing the average value of a contrast of parameter estimates (COPE) against zero in a general linear model (GLM) analysis. However, important information can also be obtained by testing whether there exist significant individual differences in effect magnitude between subjects, i.e. whether the variance of a COPE is significantly different from zero. Intuitively, such a test amounts to testing whether inter-individual differences are larger than would be expected given the within-subject error variance. We compare several methods for estimating variance components, including a) a na{\"\i}ve estimate using ordinary least squares (OLS); b) linear mixed effects in R (LMER); c) a novel Matlab implementation of iterative generalized least squares (IGLS) and its restricted maximum likelihood variant (RIGLS). All methods produced reasonable estimates of within- and between-subject variance components, with IGLS providing an attractive balance between sensitivity and appropriate control of false positives. Finally, we use the IGLS method to estimate inter-subject variance in a perfusion fMRI study (N=18) of social evaluative threat, and show evidence for significant inter-individual differences in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), amygdala, hippocampus and medial temporal lobes, insula, and brainstem, with predicted inverse coupling between VMPFC and the midbrain periaqueductal gray only when high inter-individual variance was used to define the seed for functional connectivity analyses. In sum, tests of variance provides a way of selecting regions that show significant inter-individual variability for subsequent analyses that attempt to explain those individual differences.

}, keywords = {Brain, brain mapping, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Linear Models, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Sensitivity and Specificity}, issn = {1095-9572}, doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.077}, author = {Lindquist, Martin A and Spicer, Julie and Asllani, Iris and Wager, Tor D} } @article {kriegeskorte2010everything, title = {Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask}, journal = {Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow \& Metabolism}, volume = {30}, number = {9}, year = {2010}, pages = {1551{\textendash}1557}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, author = {Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus and Lindquist, Martin A and Nichols, Thomas E and Poldrack, Russell A and Vul, Edward} } @article {847, title = {Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask.}, journal = {J Cereb Blood Flow Metab}, volume = {30}, year = {2010}, month = {2010 Sep}, pages = {1551-7}, abstract = {

Over the past year, a heated discussion about {\textquoteright}circular{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteright}nonindependent{\textquoteright} analysis in brain imaging has emerged in the literature. An analysis is circular (or nonindependent) if it is based on data that were selected for showing the effect of interest or a related effect. The authors of this paper are researchers who have contributed to the discussion and span a range of viewpoints. To clarify points of agreement and disagreement in the community, we collaboratively assembled a series of questions on circularity herein, to which we provide our individual current answers in }, keywords = {Brain, brain mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Guidelines as Topic, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neurosciences, Publications, Research Design, Selection Bias}, issn = {1559-7016}, doi = {10.1038/jcbfm.2010.86}, author = {Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus and Lindquist, Martin A and Nichols, Thomas E and Poldrack, Russell A and Vul, Edward} } @article {wager2009evaluating, title = {Evaluating the consistency and specificity of neuroimaging data using meta-analysis}, journal = {Neuroimage}, volume = {45}, number = {1}, year = {2009}, pages = {S210{\textendash}S221}, publisher = {Elsevier}, author = {Wager, Tor D and Lindquist, Martin A and Nichols, Thomas E and Kober, Hedy and Van Snellenberg, Jared X} }