Methods for Dummies Second level Analysis (for fMRI) Chris Hardy, Alex Fellows Expert: Guillaume Flandin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Advertisements

Group analyses Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London Will Penny.
Overview of SPM p <0.05 Statistical parametric map (SPM)
2nd level analysis in fMRI
Camilla Clark, Catherine Slattery
2nd level analysis – design matrix, contrasts and inference
2nd level analysis – design matrix, contrasts and inference
Group analysis Kherif Ferath Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London, Oct 2010.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis in neuroeconomics November 2010 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural.
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
Group analyses Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London Will Penny.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 28 April 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
Multiple comparison correction Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 29 October 2008 Klaas Enno Stephan Branco Weiss Laboratory (BWL) Institute for Empirical.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 26 November 2008 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
1 Overview of Hierarchical Modeling Thomas Nichols, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Biostatistics Mixed Effects.
Introduction to SPM SPM fMRI Course London, May 2012 Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London.
General Linear Model & Classical Inference
General Linear Model & Classical Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM M/EEGCourse London, May.
2nd Level Analysis Jennifer Marchant & Tessa Dekker
2nd level analysis – design matrix, contrasts and inference
Methods for Dummies Second level analysis
With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, Virginia Flanagin and Klaas Enno Stephan Dr. Frederike Petzschner Translational Neuromodeling.
7/16/2014Wednesday Yingying Wang
SPM Course Zurich, February 2015 Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London With many thanks to.
Corinne Introduction/Overview & Examples (behavioral) Giorgia functional Brain Imaging Examples, Fixed Effects Analysis vs. Random Effects Analysis Models.
Group analyses of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis November 2012 With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly.
Bayesian Inference and Posterior Probability Maps Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course,
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Event-related fMRI Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Chicago, Oct 2015.
Methods for Dummies Overview and Introduction
FMRI Modelling & Statistical Inference Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Chicago, Oct.
The General Linear Model Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM fMRI Course London, May 2012.
1 st level analysis: Design matrix, contrasts, and inference Stephane De Brito & Fiona McNabe.
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping I: Introduction to the GLM Alexa Morcom and Stefan Kiebel, Rik Henson, Andrew Holmes & J-B.
Group Analysis ‘Ōiwi Parker Jones SPM Course, London May 2015.
Variance components Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience Institute of Neurology, UCL, London Stefan Kiebel.
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping II: GLM for fMRI Alexa Morcom and Stefan Kiebel, Rik Henson, Andrew Holmes & J-B Poline.
Bayesian Inference in SPM2 Will Penny K. Friston, J. Ashburner, J.-B. Poline, R. Henson, S. Kiebel, D. Glaser Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience,
The General Linear Model Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM fMRI Course London, October 2012.
Group Analyses Guillaume Flandin SPM Course London, October 2016
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping
The General Linear Model
2nd Level Analysis Methods for Dummies 2010/11 - 2nd Feb 2011
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Random Effects Analysis
Group analyses Thanks to Will Penny for slides and content
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Keith Worsley Keith Worsley
The General Linear Model (GLM)
Methods for Dummies Second-level Analysis (for fMRI)
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Linear Hierarchical Modelling
Group analyses Thanks to Will Penny for slides and content
The general linear model and Statistical Parametric Mapping
SPM2: Modelling and Inference
Hierarchical Models and
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Mixed effects and Group Modeling for fMRI data
Methods for Dummies Second-level Analysis (for fMRI)
Bayesian Inference in SPM2
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Linear Hierarchical Models
The General Linear Model
WellcomeTrust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
The General Linear Model
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
The General Linear Model
Wellcome Dept. of Imaging Neuroscience University College London
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London
Presentation transcript:

Methods for Dummies Second level Analysis (for fMRI) Chris Hardy, Alex Fellows Expert: Guillaume Flandin

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 2

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 3

4

1 st Level Analysis is within subject Y = X x β + fMRI scans Time (e.g. TR = 3s) Time Voxel time course 5

fMRI dataDesign MatrixContrast Images SPM{t} Subject 1 Subject 2 … Subject N 6

1 st Level Analysis Spatial preprocessing Movement in scanner Fitting to standard space (MNI) Smoothing etc for statistical power 7

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.Second level analysis 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Multiple conditions 6.Practical demonstration 7.Questions 8

RealignmentSmoothing Normalisation General linear model Statistical parametric map (SPM) Parameter estimates Design matrix Template Kernel Gaussian field theory p <0.05 Statisticalinference 9

2 nd level analysis – across subjects It isn’t enough to look just at individuals. So, we need to look at which voxels are showing a significant activation difference between levels of X consistently within a group. 1.Average contrast effect across sample 2.Variation of this contrast effect 3.T-tests 10

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 11

Fixed effects analysis Each subject in an experiment repeats trials of each type many times. The variation among the responses for each level of the design matrix (X) for a given subject gives us the within-subject variance, σ w 2. So, if we take the group effect size as the mean of responses across our subjects and analyse it with respect to σ w 2. 12

Fixed effects analysis (FFX) Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject N … Modelling all subjects at once 13

Fixed effects analysis (FFX) =+ Modelling all subjects at once  Simple model  Lots of degrees of freedom 14

Effect size, c ~ 4 σ w 2 : 0.9 For voxel v in the brain Subject 1 15

Effect size, c ~ 2 σ w 2 : 1.3 For voxel v in the brain Subject 2 16

Effect size, c ~ 4 σ w 2 : 0.7 For voxel v in the brain Subject 12 17

Whole Group – FFX calculation N subjects = 12 c = [4,3,2,5…] Within subject variability, σ w 2 = [0.9,1.2,1.5,0.5, …] Mean group effect = 2.67 Mean σ w 2 = 1.04 Standard Error Mean (SEM) = σ w 2 /(sqrt(N))=0.087 t=M/SEM = 30.69, p=

Fixed effects analysis (FFX) =+ Modelling all subjects at once  Large amount of data  Assumes common variance over subjects at each voxel 19

Random effects analysis (RFX) Synonymous with ‘mixed effects models’. Assumes our sample is a set of individuals taken at random from the population of interest. To do this we need to consider the between subject variance, σ b 2, as well as σ w 2 – and estimate the likely variance of the population from which our sample is derived. 20

Interim summary: Fixed vs Random (from Poldrack, Mumford and Nichol’s ‘Handbook of fMRI analyses’) 21

“Mixed effects models should be used whenever data are grouped within certain levels of a population and inferences are to be applied to the entire population.” - Mumford and Poldrack (2007) 22

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 23

Hierarchical Summary statistics approach Random effects analysis (RFX) - Methods 24

Methods for Random Effects Hierarchical Most accurate method – gold standard Set up a GLM containing parameters for the effects and variances at both the subject AND group levels, to all be estimated at the same time. Estimates subject and group statistics via “iterative looping” Computationally demanding 25

26

Summary statistics 1 st level design for all subjects must be the SAME Uses the same sample means as in the first level analysis Gives exact same results as hierarchical model (when the within-subject variance is the same for all subjects) Validity is undermined by presence of extreme outliers. Methods for random effects 27

Whole Group – RFX Calculation N subjects = 12 c = [4,3,2,5…] Mean group effect = 2.67 Mean σ b 2 (SD) = 1.07 Standard Error Mean (SEM) = σ b 2 /(sqrt(N))=0.31 t=M/SEM = 8.61, p=

29 Contrast Images fMRI dataDesign Matrix Subject 1 … Subject N First level Generalisability, Random Effects & Population Inference. Holmes & Friston, NeuroImage,1998. Second level One-sample second level

Robustness Summary statistics Summary statistics Hierarchical Model Hierarchical Model Mixed-effects and fMRI studies. Friston et al., NeuroImage,

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 31

Button- pressing 32

33

Directory To write to Design Scans: select con.*img from 1 st level Several design options: 1 sample t-test 2 sample t-test Paired t-test Multiple regression 1 way ANOVA Full or flexible factorial Set-up options 34

Set-up options Covariates Input covariates & nuisance variables here 1 value per con*.img Masking Specifies voxels within image which are to be assessed Implicit is default 35

(scroll down…) (For PET only) Specify 2 nd level Set-Up ↓ Save 2 nd level Set-Up ↓ Run analysis ↓ Look at the RESULTS 36

Results 37

e.g. 2 nd level 1-sample t-test Select t-contrast Define new contrast c = +1 (e.g. A>B) c = -1 (e.g. B>A) 38

Select options for displaying results: Correct for multiple comparisons – FWE/FDR. 39

40

41

42

Summary For fMRI data, usually preferable to use RFX analysis, not FFX Hierarchical models provide gold standard for RFX, BUT computationally intensive Summary statistics = robust method for RFX group analysis 43

Overview of today’s talk 1.Recap of first level analysis 2.What is second level analysis? 3.Fixed vs. random effects 4.How do we analyse random effects? 5.Practical demonstration 6.Questions 44

Resources Previous MfD slides (Bex Bond and Samira Kazan) (Camilla Clark and Cat Slattery) Slides from Guillaume Flandin’s talk in Zurich, Feb 2014 Mumford, J. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). Modeling group fMRI data. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2(3), Friston, K. J., Stephan, K. E., Lund, T. E., Morcom, A., & Kiebel, S. (2005). Mixed-effects and fMRI studies. Neuroimage, 24(1),