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  March 2017

SPM March 2017

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: How to run a (1st + 2nd level) Bayesian analysis in SPM

From:

Paul Glad Mihai <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Paul Glad Mihai <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:53:08 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (281 lines)

Dear Will,

I've done some digging and found the following. I'm using a blocked
design, i.e. boxcar function convolved with the HRF. This convolution is
comparable to a rapid event related design convolved with the HRF and
thus leads to a superposition of HRFs which add up to a higher peak then
the basis function. This peak should then be used as a scale factor to
scale the percent signal change calculation. For an event related
design, however, where stick functions are far apart the peaks of these
stand-alone regressors should be the same as for the basis function (I
think this is always 0.21). One should thus be careful when calculating
the percent signal change.

I got this info from Paul Mazaika
http://cibsr.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/cibsr/documents/tools/methods/artrepair-software/FMRIPercentSignalChange.pdf

Re: point 2 from my previous question, if I have a contrast [1 1 -1 -1]
then the mean contrast should be calculated from the positive values
only. The vector is divided by 2 instead of 4, since we have an equal
number of negative contrasts and the overall sum is zero. Another way to
put it is, you are comparing the mean percent signal change from one
condition with the mean percent signal change in the other condition. If
I would divide by 4 (sum of absolute values of the contrast vector) I
would have half of the mean difference of percent signal change.

Kind regards,
Glad



On 03/06/2017 10:37 AM, Penny, William wrote:
> Dear Glad,
> 
> 
> Re point 2 - yes I think it makes sense to report the average activation
> over conditions, in which case dividing by 4 in this example would be
> the thing to do.
> 
> 
> Re points 3 and 1 - its been a while since I've looked at this. 
> 
> See below for what we say in the SPM manual. Cyril says let sf=max(trial
> Xss) in his equation (8) where Xss is the HRF (at microtime resolution).
> It seems to me that these are the same. But I may be wrong.
> 
> Cyril/Rik - can you clarify ?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Will.
> 
> 
> Let sf =max(SPM.xBF.bf(:,1))/SPM.xBF.dt (alternatively, press
> “Design:Explore:Session 1” and select
> any of the conditions, then read off the peak height of the canonical
> HRF basis function (bottom
> left)).
> Then, if you want a size threshold of 1% peak signal change, the value
> you need to enter for
> the PPM threshold (ie the number in the units of the parameter
> estimates) is 1/sf (which should
> be 4.75 in the present case).
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Paul Glad Mihai <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 01 March 2017 09:42
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [SPM] How to run a (1st + 2nd level) Bayesian analysis in
> SPM
>  
> Dear Will,
> 
> I'm piggybacking on this thread as I have a question regarding the
> Bayesian discussion.
> 
> 1. First Level Bayesian Inference: Concerning the scaling factor for the
> parameter estimates (as outlined in the manual on page 268), doesn't it
> make more sense to use the maximum of the basis function convolved with
> the regressors (stick functions or boxcars, depending on the design)?
> The maximum is different between the basis function and the one
> convolved with the regressors.That's what I understood from this paper:
> Pernet, C. R. (2014). Misconceptions in the use of the General Linear
> Model applied to functional MRI: a tutorial for junior neuro-imagers.
> Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8(January), 1–12.
> http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00001
> 
> 2. Calculating the contrasts on the first level requires the average of
> the parameter estimates for the canonical hrf. If you have a contrast
> like the following:
> [1, 1, -1, -1] would you then divide by 4 to scale the contrast to [1/4,
> 1/4, -1/4, -1/4]?
> 
> 3. When taking the computed contrasts from the first level to the second
> level, would you need to take into account the average of the parameter
> estimates (as in point 2 above) AND the scaling factor? So instead of
> calculating the contrast as
> [1, 1, -1, -1]/4 you would then calculate it for a 1% signal change as
> [1, 1, -1, -1]/4-(1/sf)? Or does the scaling factor not play a role in
> the second level analysis when using contrasts?
> 
> Regards,
> Glad
> 
> On 02/08/2017 01:00 AM, SPM automatic digest system wrote:
>> Date:    Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:50:42 +0000
>> From:    "Penny, William" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: How to run a (1st + 2nd level) Bayesian analysis in SPM
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> 
>> Here are my answers to your follow-ups.
>> 
>> 
>> 1. This is hard to quantify - there is potentially an advantage (assuming you used some form of spatial prior at the first level) - in that the regression coefficients and therefore contrasts are implicitly smoothed by a data-defined amount - and this is tuned to each regression coefficient. So the advantage, if any, would
> be that an optimal smoothing would have been applied. Whether this
> justifies the extra amount of time to fit the model is up to the user.
>> 
>> 
>> 2. That's correct - given the connection with FDR there is no need for a multiple comparisons correction.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. The main article to read is:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/doc/papers/karl_posterior.pdf
> Posterior probability maps and SPMs
> <http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/doc/papers/karl_posterior.pdf>
> www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk
> Technical Note Posterior probability maps and SPMs K.J. Friston* and W.
> Penny The Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, London, Queen
> Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> More recently we have added a new functionality for the equivalent of F-contrasts which does not require an effect size threshold. It computes log-evidence maps and you just threshold the log-odds ratio:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/publications/penny13.pdf
> Efficient Posterior Probability Mapping Using Savage ...
> <http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/publications/penny13.pdf>
> www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk
> Efficient Posterior Probability Mapping Using Savage-Dickey Ratios
> William D. Penny*, Gerard R. Ridgway Wellcome Trust Centre for
> Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology ...
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> 
>> Will.
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: David Hofmann <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: 06 February 2017 11:27
>> To: Penny, William
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [SPM] How to run a (1st + 2nd level) Bayesian analysis in SPM
>> 
>> Hi William,
>> 
>> thanks for the helpful reply! I have a few follow-up questions and hope you can also help me with those:
>> 
>> 1. Is there any advantage in running a first level Bayesian analysis beforehand, i.e. what more can be done?
>> 
>> 2. Is it necessary to correct for multiple comparisons (either 1st or 2nd level respectively)? I read that this is never necessary and that a PPM thresholded at 95 % confidence is related to an FDR of 5 % in classical analysis.
>> 
>> 3. Can you recommend an article which can be cited and that explains the method used for running a 2nd level Bayesian analysis on top or a normal GLM?
>> 
>> Thanks again!
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 2017-02-03 14:57 GMT+01:00 Penny, William <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> 
>> For one-dimensional contrasts (e.g. t-tests) SPM asks you for two parameters for Bayesian inference at the second level (i) Effect Size Threshold (Default 0.1) and (ii) Log Odds Threshold (Default 10).
>> 
>> 
>> Other reasonable choices would be 0 and 3.
>> 
>> 
>> The effect size threshold, T, tells SPM that you are only interested in voxels with contrast values C^beta > T. ie. that your experimental effect is bigger than T.
>> 
>> 
>> The Log Odds Threshold, L, tells SPM that you are only interested in voxels where SPM is sure (with posterior probability 1/(1+exp(-L)) )
>> 
>> that this is the case.
>> 
>> 
>> Note that L=3 gives you p=0.95.
>> 
>> L=10 is much, much more stringent giving p=0.99995.
>> 
>> 
>> I would advise you use the most recent version of SPM when doing this.
>> 
>> 
>> Also, you don't have to do a first level Bayesian analysis if you want to a second-level one.
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> 
>> Will.
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of David Hofmann <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Sent: 31 January 2017 10:52
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [SPM] How to run a (1st + 2nd level) Bayesian analysis in SPM
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have an fMRI event-related design in which subjects viewed fearful and neutral faces. I want to run a 1st level and a second level Bayesian analysis in SPM. For this, I did the following steps:
>> 
>> 1. 1st level Bayesian analysis with standard settings as described in the manual
>> 2. Contrast fear faces > neutral faces
>> 3. For the 2nd level analysis, I smoothed the con-files and ran a one-sample t-test (estimated the model first with the classical and then with the 2nd level Bayesian option)
>> 4. I specified a t-contrast (i.e. [1]) for the one-sample t-test of the subjects
>> 5. I chose apply masking - none
>> 
>> Now SPM is asking me for the Effect size threshold for PPM at the 2nd level and suggests 0.99. Whereas the meaning of the effect size threshold was clearly explained in the manual for the 1st level analysis, I not sure what value to choose for the 2nd level analysis and what this value means.When I select the suggested value
> (0.99) and choose as Log Odds Threshold 10, which should correspond to
> 95 % certainty, then there is no effect. There are also no effects for a
> value as low as 0.2. This is very strange since in the classical
> analysis there are very strong effects (fusiform gyrus) which survive an
> FWE correction at 0.01.
>> 
>> The questions are as follows:
>> 
>> 1. Are the analysis steps I did correct or is there a better way to test for group effect by means of Bayesian analysis (e.g. Bayesian model comparison, Rosa, M.J. et al., 2010)
>> 
>> 2. What does the effect size threshold at the 2nd level mean and what are reasonable values?
>> 
>> 
>> Here is an overview of posts with topic Bayesian analysis, which did not help me answering my questions:
>> 1.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=spm;888fe64.1503
>> 2.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=SPM;41144d5.1403
>> 3.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=SPM;5f9a54e5.1405
>> 4.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1603&L=spm&F=&S=&P=639757
>> 5.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=spm;2e6e6dca.1405
>> 6.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=spm;a5ab6e97.1603
>> 7.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=SPM;377114fa.0909
>> 
>> 
>> greetings
>> 
>> David
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Glad Mihai, PhD
> 
> Independent Research Group "Neural Mechanisms of Human Communication"
> Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
> Stephanstraße 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
> 
> Phone:   +49 (0) 341-9940-2478
> E-mail:  [log in to unmask]

-- 
Paul Glad Mihai, PhD

Independent Research Group "Neural Mechanisms of Human Communication"
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
Stephanstraße 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

Phone:   +49 (0) 341-9940-2478
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]

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