Hi Joe, Yes, you are right we are discussing different things (sorry for the confusion). Let me answer this message, then I would suggest you, I and todd take it off the SPM list, since this discussion is not related to SPM and I feel bad cluttering up everyone else's e-mails. ;-) GIFT only does spatial ICA....and the terminology is as follows: X = data matrix A = mixing matrix (BOLD timecourse) S = source image matrix X ~= A*S; GIFT forces the maximal value in S to be positive and if this requires a sign change it is applied to A as well. But that's not really important here. Since A*S approximates X, you can always tell the sign of the BOLD changes by looking at a specific voxel in a given source image...if that voxel is positive, then the BOLD signal change looks like the timecourse in the A matrix...if the voxel is negative, then the BOLD signal change is anti-correlated to the A matrix. In Todd's case it does look like a signal decrease, however it's hard for me to tell since I don't know where the spikes are, hence I suggested he apply his SPM design matrix to quantify whether the A matrix is positively or negatively correlated to the spikes. Hope this helps, Vince > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Dien [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:41 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [SPM] independent component analysis of fMRI data > > Vince, > we're having some sort of miscommunication here. Anyway, sounds > like we need to be defining the terms first. First of all, correct > me if I am wrong, but I think your response only makes sense if the > ICA was done as a temporal analysis, not a spatial analysis. > Only in > that case would the mixing matrix be the BOLD timecourse. Todd said > originally that he was doing a spatial ICA. As I know you know, > given your extensive expertise and publication record in ICA (so I'm > just saying this for Todd's sake), that means that the voxels were > the variables and the ICA activation is the time course. The > weighting matrix would then represent the relationship of the voxels > to each ICA component and would reflect a spatial map, not a BOLD > time course. > > However, in Todd's response to me, he describes A as being ("the > corresponding time course value") so perhaps that led you to > think he > was talking about a temporal ICA. I think we need a clarification > from Todd on whether he did a spatial or temporal ICA. I think that > is the source of the quibbles and that we are actually in agreement > about things. I definitely acknowledge your mastery of ICA so I'm > thinking that there is just miscommunication going on here. > > Also, we may be having some confusion about the terminology of the > symbols. As you know, letters don't have inherent meanings in > statistics and different authors use different naming conventions, > which leads to much confusion. I was understanding Todd's > statement as: > > X = the ICA activation matrix > A = the unmixing matrix > S = the original data matrix > > I see though that it is more common to define it as: > > S = the ICA activation matrix > A = the mixing matrix > X = the original data matrix > > in which case you definitely would not want to be looking at inv(A), > I agree. > > My point, though, about interpreting the activation matrix is not > affected by the terminology issue. A positive value on an ICA > activation variable (for a spatial ICA) can correspond to either a > BOLD activation or a BOLD deactivation depending on the particular > voxel and that information must be obtained from an appropriate > viewing of the weighting matrix information. It wasn't clear to me > from Todd's posting whether he was taking that into account > and so it > could potentially be the solution to his puzzle. > > I should note that I know ICA but I am not familiar with the GIFT > software so perhaps there is something about the GIFT output format > that I am not aware of (that you could clarify as one of the authors > of the GIFT software). If, for example, the software has a > convention of always setting the spatial map so that the largest > weights are positive, then this ambiguity would not be a problem as > long as he was looking at the voxels that had the largest and hence > positive weights (or as long as all his weights have the same > sign). > The figure he posted didn't have the numbers for the scale so I > couldn't tell if that was the case for his analysis, hence my > request > for more information about his data. > > Cheers! > > Joe > > > > > On Nov 26, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Vince Calhoun wrote: > > > Hi, > > I would quibble with what you say below...the model is > X=A*S where A > > is the BOLD timecourse and S is the source image. A is the *mixing > > matrix*...not the unmixing matrix. You actually can interpret the > > GIFT > > timecourse (what todd sent) as BOLD activation or deactivation. > > The inverse > > of A will not resemble BOLD activity. > > > > VDC > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) > >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Dien > >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:24 PM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: [SPM] independent component analysis of fMRI data > >> > >> Yeah, that's right! Although I work with ICA (and just published a > >> comprehensive comparison with PCA in Human Brain Mapping), > I started > >> with PCA so I think about it from that perspective. Come to > >> think of > >> it though, the unmixing matrix (A) in ICA corresponds to the factor > >> scoring matrix in PCA. It's the mixing matrix that > >> corresponds to PCA > >> factor loadings (the ICA terminology is rather clearer I > think). So > >> what I mean is, does the mixing matrix times the activation score > >> result in a positive or a negative spike at the voxels of interest? > >> You get the mixing matrix by taking the inverse of A. In plain > >> English, for your analysis, an ICA component will represent voxels > >> that go in opposite directions, so your positive time course in > >> matrix X (the "activation matrix") will represent an activation at > >> some voxels and a deactivation at other voxels. The ICA > terminology > >> is a little confusing when applied to fMRI data since > >> "activation" is > >> being used in two different ways here. You can't interpret the ICA > >> activation matrix X directly as being either a BOLD activation or a > >> deactivation. You need to figure out what it means for the > >> particular voxel you are interested in. The clearest way > to do this > >> is to compute X*inv(A)=S which will regenerate the portion of the > >> BOLD signal that is being accounted for by this component alone and > >> then see if it is being modeled as an activation or a > >> deactivation in > >> the voxels that you are interested in. So the question is whether > >> this is what you have already done. If not, then this is my > >> recommendation to you. > >> > >> Cheers! > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:23 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Joe, > >>> > >>> I think I know what you mean, but let me respond here just so > >>> we're clear. I may be using terminology that is different than > >>> yours to describe the same thing. I'm not quite sure what > >> you mean > >>> by 'the loading' but, given the context of the message, I > >> think you > >>> mean the value in the A matrix (the corresponding time course > >>> value, i.e. x = As, the ICA model) that corresponds with that > >>> particular voxel's spatial weight (the activation as you say)? I > >>> just never call it the loading, that is why I am asking. > >>> > >>> Thx > >>> > >>> Todd > >>> > >>> Quoting Joseph Dien <[log in to unmask]>: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> that's what I mean. At least when I look at it, there are no > >>>> values attached to the color scale (as in the attached > figure). So > >>>> anyway, the question is, have you verified that the > product of the > >>>> loading and the activation is indeed negative? If the product is > >>>> positive, then the mystery is solved. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ---------- > >> -------- > >> > >> Joseph Dien > >> Assistant Professor of Psychology > >> Department of Psychology > >> 419 Fraser Hall (by the coke machine) > >> 1415 Jayhawk Blvd > >> University of Kansas > >> Lawrence, KS 66045-7556 > >> E-mail: [log in to unmask] > >> Office: 785-864-9822 (note: no voicemail) > >> Fax: 785-864-5696 > >> http://people.ku.edu/~jdien/Dien.html > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > -------- > > Joseph Dien > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Department of Psychology > 419 Fraser Hall (by the coke machine) > 1415 Jayhawk Blvd > University of Kansas > Lawrence, KS 66045-7556 > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > Office: 785-864-9822 (note: no voicemail) > Fax: 785-864-5696 > http://people.ku.edu/~jdien/Dien.html > >