JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  August 2011

SPM August 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCM analysis on intracranial EEG

From:

Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:12:27 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (300 lines)

Dear Liang,

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:53 PM, liang wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> Thanks very much for your kind explanations, which are very helpful.
> However, several problems to me still exist.
>
> 1) When I setup a model (select 'IND' while specifying new data, select
> 'LFP' in neural model step, and specify a couple of linear and nonlinear
> connection), and run "invert DCM". Then Save the results as a specified
> name. However, when I load that saved DCM file, I always get a error "please
> specify # source locations" and the data type is automatically changed to
> 'SSR'. I am not sure whether or not this is a bug for intracrani/local field
> potential data analysis.
>

Yes, this is probably a bug. If you can change the DCM type back to
IND and it works then there is no problem. I'll try to fix it when I
have time.

> 2) in last email, you said "you should look where you start getting activity
> deviating from the baseline and put your input around that
> time point. If your event is something like a button press then the input
> will probably come before the button press". I completely understand this.
> But I am not sure when the input happens. I think that the onset of the
> input is the onset of the condition (or stimulus / event), right? this input
> should be independent of the analysis window under "data and design", right?
>

Input timing is optimised so that it'll be where I said, close to the
onset of the activity. You should just initialize it more or less to
the right time. Everything in your analysis window that is before the
input will be modelled as flat. But as I said the input timing will
not necessarily stay as you defined it so it makes sense to include a
baseline period. Also the code substract the first sample from the
data so the window should start somewhere where there is no activity.

> 3) do you think is that possible to investigate dynamic properties of a
> causal model over time. If so, I would like to divide the data length into
> different stage to do that.
>

I don't think that's a good idea because DCM models the actual
physical process, in the case of DCM-IR - the system is at rest then
comes the input, causes some dynamics and then it dissipates. You
can't model the dynamics from the middle, you must always include the
onset. What you can do is make the window longer or shorter at the
end. This was done in Garrido et al. PNAS, 104(52):20961-20966, 2007
for DCM-ERP and could also apply to DCM-IR. But I don't know whether
it'll help to answer your particular question.

Best,

Vladimir

> Best wishes and thanks a lot.
> Liang
>
>
> 2011/8/10 Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Dear Liang,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM, liang wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Thanks for your correction. I think I should use DCM for induced
>> > responses,
>> > but I am still confusing, though I have read several relevant papers.
>> >
>> > I do not clear know what's the main differences between DCM for evoked
>> > response (ERP) and for induced responses (IR). From the definition for
>> > two
>> > terminology, evoked response is phase-locked to the stimulus, whereas
>> > induced response is non-phase-locked to the stimulus. By reading SPM
>> > manual,
>> > I understand that DCM for IR models coupling within (i.e., linear) and
>> > between (i.e., non-linear) frequencies across the sources. However, I
>> > think
>> > this different viewpoint by looking at coupling in temporal and
>> > frequency
>> > domain may not clear distinguish the two DCM variants.
>>
>> Lets make things simpler and define that evoked responses (a.k.a.
>> ERP/ERF) for the purposes of DCM are waveforms computed by averaging
>> EEG/MEG signals in the time domain around events of interest (which
>> might be stimuli or responses).  Induced responses are time-frequency
>> matrices computed by averaging time-frequency images of power of
>> EEG/MEG around events of interest. You get those images by using
>> Fourier analysis or something similar. There is a different sense to
>> evoked and induced that was recently discussed here
>> (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=SPM;e02519b7.1105) , but
>> lets ignore that kind of distinction for now.
>>
>> >
>> > Also, SPM manual 16.11.1 says that "we will model the entire spectra,
>> > including both the evoked and induced components", which means that DCM
>> > for
>> > IR covers both.
>>
>> That's exactly the distinction that is not very important for the
>> present discussion.
>>
>> > I think this understanding is true if I epoch the data
>> > around the stimulus onset. In the paper (Chen et al., J Neuro 2010),
>> > they
>> > epoched the data around the movement onset, whereby they could correctly
>> > call induced response (non-phase-locked to the stimulus).
>>
>> Induced responses can be induced by stimulus or response. DCM-IR does
>> not look at phase-locking. It models TF images that include both
>> phase-locked and non phase-locked components.
>>
>> > In addition, I do
>> > not know what's the onset (default 60ms) used for model specification?
>> > which
>> > region received the external input (that paper did not show this input)?
>> >
>>
>> Yes , input is not mentioned in the paper but it's just an omission by
>> the authors. There definitely were inputs in their model. I don't know
>> exactly how they were set up but it couldn't be any other way. 60ms is
>> something that is there for historical reasons and is not relevant for
>> DCM-IR. As I mentioned before you should look where you start getting
>> activity deviating from the baseline and put your input around that
>> time point. If your event is something like a button press then the
>> input will probably come before the button press.
>>
>> > To my understanding, DCM for IR likes bi-directional connections. If I
>> > specify unidirectional connection, the model will converge very fast and
>> > predicted data for that region involved will be empty. Is that
>> > reasonable?
>>
>> It's not necessarily a matter of unidirectional vs. bidirectional but
>> the model needs to be complex enough to generate interesting dynamics.
>> If all your connections are linear, the activity will dissipate very
>> fast and won't be able to fit anything. Under these circumstances the
>> Bayesian scheme might prefer to shrink the parameters to zero. So try
>> for instance making the connections nonlinear.
>>
>> > I can not specify linear connection within a source (disable option), is
>> > this
>> > connection specified as default?
>>
>> Yes. There must be at least intrinsic linear connection.
>>
>> >
>> > Last question, could you guide me how to check how much variance is
>> > explained by the specified frequency modes, because Chen's paper
>> > mentioned
>> > this information. Otherwise, I need compute them manually.
>> >
>>
>> You can find in DCM.xY.S the singular values corresponding to the
>> modes. You can use them to compute variance explained by something
>> like:
>>
>> S = DCM.xY.S;
>>
>> VE = S.^2./sum(S.^2);
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> > Sorry about a lot of questions from a new DCM explorer.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Liang
>> >
>> > 2011/8/9 Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>
>> >> Dear Liang,
>> >>
>> >> It sounds like you are somewhat confused by the different DCM
>> >> variants. DCM for induced responses does not distinguish between
>> >> forward and backward connections, just between linear and nonlinear.
>> >> You should usually have some well-defined model (or a series of
>> >> models) to specify which are which. See Chen et al. NeuroImage,
>> >> 45(2):453-462, 2009 and Chen et al. J Neurosci. 23;30(25):8393-9 for
>> >> examples.
>> >>
>> >> SPM and DCM cannot handle variable length trials. Also since DCM for
>> >> induced responses models the average  response your must take a set of
>> >> trials that when averaged will yield something meaningful. So I
>> >> suggest that you select a set of trials with comparable durations and
>> >> cut them to the same length. Usually for induced responses your trials
>> >> will be longer than 200-300ms especially for areas high in the
>> >> hierarchy. But you can just look at your averaged TF data and select
>> >> the trial boundaries so that the interesting features will be
>> >> included. The input should be more or less at the time when the
>> >> activity starts departing from baseline.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Vladimir
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:18 PM, liang wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> > Hi DCM experts,
>> >> >
>> >> > I would like to use DCM to investigate information flow direction
>> >> > across
>> >> > several attention regions (mainly focusing on frontal parietal
>> >> > attention
>> >> > network). The regions selected are ventral medial frontal gyrus
>> >> > (vMFG),
>> >> > middle frontal gyrus (MFG), dorsal premotor motor cortex (dPMC),
>> >> > intraparietal sulcus (IPS) and inferior parietal lobe (IPL). I have a
>> >> > couple
>> >> > of questions for specifying the connections.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) to my understanding, all the regions are high-level regions. Is
>> >> > that
>> >> > possible that I just select those regions if I have a hypothesis
>> >> > about
>> >> > the
>> >> > connection direction. I am not sure whether or not it is necessary to
>> >> > specify forward (bottom-up) and backward (top-down) connections in
>> >> > this
>> >> > situation (or leave them alone). The reason for no visual region is
>> >> > that
>> >> > the
>> >> > electrodes did not cover that area.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) I want to focus on induced responses (not evoked response). Could
>> >> > I
>> >> > set
>> >> > the start window, like starting at 200ms? and chane 60ms onset
>> >> > (default
>> >> > setup for neural response to my understanding) to 0?
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) because of variable stimuli duration for my experiment, is it
>> >> > possible to
>> >> > make each trail have different data length? what is the minimum
>> >> > (restricted)
>> >> > data length for DCM analysis? (because sometime one of trails has
>> >> > very
>> >> > short
>> >> > duration, like 300ms).
>> >> >
>> >> > 4) (the last question may be not related to this topic) could you
>> >> > give
>> >> > me
>> >> > some advice how to specify forward or backward connection. Let me say
>> >> > if
>> >> > I
>> >> > have several regions including thalamus and few cortical regions. For
>> >> > an
>> >> > attention task, thalamus is an important area, partly because this
>> >> > area
>> >> > projects a lot of anatomical connections to posterior part of the
>> >> > brain.
>> >> > However, it is hard to simply specify it as low- or high-level
>> >> > region.
>> >> > To
>> >> > me, a simple solution is trying each possible model and compare those
>> >> > model
>> >> > based on BMC tool (too much time will be taken). Maybe there is
>> >> > alternative
>> >> > ways to easy achieve that. thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please let me know if you think some steps are important for this
>> >> > type
>> >> > of
>> >> > analysis that I need pay more attention on.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > Liang
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Liang Wang, PhD
>> >> > Neuroscience of Attention and Perception Laboratory
>> >> > Princeton Neuroscience Institute
>> >> > Princeton University
>> >> > Princeton, NJ, 08540
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Liang Wang, PhD
>> > Neuroscience of Attention and Perception Laboratory
>> > Princeton Neuroscience Institute
>> > Princeton University
>> > Princeton, NJ, 08540
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Liang Wang, PhD
> Neuroscience of Attention and Perception Laboratory
> Princeton Neuroscience Institute
> Princeton University
> Princeton, NJ, 08540
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager