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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  December 2014

SPM December 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCM: Problem with percentage of explained variance

From:

briannh <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

briannh <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:55:55 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (284 lines)

Hi Eric,

the dynamic expectation maximization is used for inversion of 
stochastic DCM models- I think that when there's no direct input, then 
the spm_dcm_estimate script will use this inversion scheme. This leads 
to much better fits, but it's using noise rather than the paradigm to 
explain a lot of the data. I guess your B-values are very small? That 
also explains the drop in variance explained when you define direct 
inputs, as the estimate-script will use the deterministic scheme 
instead.

We previously also experienced problems with flat-line fits using 
deterministic DCM on an event-related paradigm - Peter came with some 
helpfull suggestions and 1) increasing the number of conditions used as 
direct input (even though our question was related to the modulatory 
influence of one of the conditions) and 2) using the 2-state version of 
DCM actually did a difference- the average % variance explained 
increased from ca 5 % to 17%.

So these two things may be worthwhile to try?

Best, Brian





On 2014-12-04 18:22, Eric Holst wrote:
> Dear Peter, dear SPM-experts,
>
> Leaving the hypotheses of my work aside, I have spent some time
> testing my VOIs under different conditions by reducing my models to
> two regions and systematically varying the input of all my factors to
> regions and/or connections. Let's say my two regions (VOIs) are left
> and right PPC as mentioned before (I have tested different VOIs as
> well) with reciprocal intrinsic connections. This is what I've found
> out:
>
> 1.) Whenever I *only* define one ore more factors as modulatory input
> to one or more connections (without defining the same or a different
> factor as driving input to any of both regions) the explained 
> variance
> of my model is ranging from 38-40%. This is independent of the 
> factors
> or the contrasts I use for extracting my VOIs. The model takes way
> longer to estimate using a different algorhythm ("Dynamic Expectation
> Maximisation"). To my knowledge this is  not useful, as I have not
> defined a driving input as pertubation to my system.
> In other words: it makes no sense setting up a DCM without driving
> input. But on the other hand I have a high percentage of explained
> variance.
>
> 2.) This high percentage of explained variance drastically drops to
> 0-3% (mostly 0%) soon as I *additionally* define any factor as 
> driving
> input to one or more regions. This is again independent of the 
> factors
> and contrasts I use. But as far as I know this is the right method 
> for
> setting up DCMs.
>
> Maybe you or someone else can explain this finding? I am a little bit
> confused about it.
>
> I am not sure that concatenating my sessions will make a big
> difference, but I am willing to give it a try. A script for
> concatenating sessions would be great. Thank you very much Peter for
> your help!
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>> Dear Eric,
>> Regarding your DCMs flat-lining. First, you are correct that 
>> extracting the ROIs with SPM12 won't make a difference. And I'll 
>> assume that your contrasts and effects of interest contrast are 
>> correctly specified - always worth checking. (You get a good level of 
>> explained variance in your ROIs, which is a good sign.)
>>
>> Model fitting is more challenging with fast event-related designs, 
>> and you do not have many trials per condition. I think concatenating 
>> your sessions could be very important. I appreciate the technical 
>> challenge in doing this - I am planning a feature for SPM to do this 
>> automatically, but it won't be ready for a while. In the meantime, I 
>> think Donald McLaren (CC'd) may have a concatenation script that may 
>> help. Otherwise,  you'll need to do this manually with your onsets. As 
>> you say, you'll need to be very careful with dummy scans etc.
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Peter.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Holst
>> Sent: 03 December 2014 13:54
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [SPM] DCM: Problem with percentage of explained 
>> variance
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> Thank you very much for helping me again.
>>
>> ad 1. I have already estimated the same DCM analysis in SPM12, 
>> unfortunately yielding the same results (explained variance of 0% in 
>> spm_dcm_fmri_check). But I have not tried to extract my VOIs with 
>> SPM12 for the DCM. I am not sure if this has any impact on the priors.
>>
>> ad 2. Your assumption is right, I have modeled separate DCMs per 
>> session. Reading the older posts about concatenating sessions worries 
>> me a little bit, as I am not good at MATLAB coding and there are many 
>> pitfalls for calculating my concatenated onsets (dummy scans at the 
>> beginning of each scan, etc.). This is why I am quite sure, I won't be 
>> able to do it manually. Is there an easy way to do it (maybe using 
>> gPPI)? I am very willing to give it a try, if there is an 'easy' way 
>> to do it.
>>
>> You are presuming that the problem may result from a small number of 
>> trials. Each of my sessions consists of 40 trials in randomized order
>> (20 trials for condition 1 and 20 trials for condition 2). Wrong or 
>> missing answers were not further analysed. My subjects had an average 
>> percentage of right answers of about 70-90%, so for each condition I 
>> have 13+ trials. I am not sure, if this is sufficient.
>>
>> Please see attached file "DCM_inputs" as a DCM example for one 
>> session of one subject (condition 1). The first input "photic" is a 
>> driving input to bilateral V1 regions, the second input "form" is a 
>> modulatory input to bilateral V1->V4 connections. I am varying the 
>> third input "att_1HEM" as modulatory input to regions/connections in 
>> my models (representing attentional modulation under condition 1). 
>> Note that there is no peak in "att_1HEM" for trials under condition 2. 
>> For these conditions I have a second modulatory input "att_2HEM" with 
>> different models, whereas the other inputs "photic" and "form" are 
>> kept unchanged.
>> The aim of my study is to find out if the best model under BMS is 
>> same or different for condition 1 vs. condition 2. The duration of 
>> input "form" is only 100 ms, the other durations are always 6+ 
>> seconds. I thought that the problem could arise from the short 
>> duration of "form"
>> in comparison to the other inputs, but when I estimate models 
>> without "form" the explained variance goes up to 1% in some (rare) 
>> cases - which is still not good enough.
>>
>> Is there anything more I could try or test? Maybe there is a problem 
>> with my contrasts?
>>
>> Best,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> Your procedure for picking ROIs sounds perfect. Two things come to 
>>> mind:
>>>
>>> 1. You mention in your original email that you are using SPM8. 
>>> Could you try exactly the same DCM analysis in SPM12? The priors were 
>>> changed to reduce the chance of flat-lining.
>>>
>>> 2. You have 6 sessions, and it doesn't look like you've 
>>> concatenated them into a single session, thus I assume you're 
>>> creating separate models per session? This means in each model, you 
>>> may not have many trials? Try SPM12 first, otherwise I suggest 
>>> concatenating the sessions into one long session, with extra 
>>> regressors to model session effects. See many previous posts on how 
>>> to do this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) 
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Eric Holst
>>> Sent: 03 December 2014 00:25
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [SPM] DCM: Problem with percentage of explained 
>>> variance
>>>
>>> Dear Peter, dear SPM-experts,
>>>
>>> This may serve as an example to demonstrate how I have defined and 
>>> extracted my VOIs.
>>>
>>> First, I have created masks for my ROIs with the SPM Anatomy 
>>> Toolbox (version 18) in MNI-space.
>>> In my example, this is for posterior parietal cortex of the left 
>>> hemisphere (PPC_L), consisting of Brodman area 5+7.
>>>
>>> As mentioned before, I have calculated one SPM per subject 
>>> containing sessions 1-6, so for each subject...
>>> - SPM => Results
>>> - t-contrast for "attention"
>>> - masking (inclusive) => image: ROI_PPC_L (as created with SPM 
>>> Anatomy
>>> Toolbox)
>>> - p value adjustment: none
>>> - threshold: p = 0.05
>>> - extended threshold voxels: 0
>>> - goto: global maximum (which is inside my predefined mask)
>>> - eigenvariate
>>> - adjust for: effects of interest (EOI)
>>> - session: 1-6
>>> - sphere radius: 6 mm
>>>
>>> In this way I have extracted my VOIs for all subjects and sessions 
>>> for PPC_L. For PPC of the right hemisphere and the other regions (V1 
>>> and V4) I have used different masks and/or contrasts, resulting in 36 
>>> VOIs per subject (6 regions x 6 sessions). By definition these VOIs 
>>> were based on activations in my SPM analysis, subjects without 
>>> activation in any of these ROIs were not further analysed.
>>>
>>> Based on these VOIs I have set up my DCMs. The basic setup of each 
>>> DCM
>>> is similar to the one used for the „attention to motion“ paper,
>>> including 6 regions with reciprocal intrahemispheric connections
>>> between
>>> V1-V4 and V4-PPC and reciprocal interhemispheric connections 
>>> between
>>> V4-V4 and PPC-PPC. Driving input is allocated to both V1 regions. 
>>> On this basis I have set up multiple DCMs with alternating modulatory 
>>> input of factor "attention" to either regions or connections to 
>>> subsequently perform a BMS analysis.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter, I hope I have answered your questions. If you have more 
>>> questions, please let me know. If the extraction of my VOIs is 
>>> correct, where else could I dig for my mistake?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>> Sorry you're still having problems with your models. Simplifying 
>>>> the models to 3 regions is a good start. Could you tell us more 
>>>> about how you choose your ROIs? Are they based on activations in 
>>>> your SPM analysis, in the same experimental conditions as you're 
>>>> modelling with the DCM?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping)
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Holst
>>>> Sent: 01 December 2014 13:55
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: [SPM] DCM: Problem with percentage of explained variance
>>>>
>>>> Dear Peter, dear SPM-experts,
>>>>
>>>> some time ago I posted a question about very low percentage of 
>>>> explained variance (0%) when checking my DCMs with 
>>>> spm_dcm_fmri_check.
>>>>
>>>> (see
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1411&L=spm&F=&S=&X=
>>>> 4
>>>> C60EE6C21C6F1C1B5&Y=eric.holst%40web.de&P=334445)
>>>>
>>>> As this could be due to complexity of my DCMs I have reduced my 
>>>> basic model from 6 to 3 regions, but explained variance is still at 
>>>> 0%.
>>>>
>>>> I have read about increasing the area of the VOIs (I am using a 6 
>>>> mm sphere), but most of my VOIs already consist of 30+ voxels.
>>>> [Btw: I smoothed my data in preprocessing.]
>>>>
>>>> Now I am wondering about the right way to proceed. What should I 
>>>> do now to improve my models?
>>>>
>>>> Any help is appreciated and thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>> Eric Holst
>>>>
>>>> Department of Neurology
>>>> Charité, Berlin, Germany

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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