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 2018

SPM March 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: MEG sources not fitting scalp results

From:

Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Vladimir Litvak <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:38:26 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (280 lines)

Dear Ulrich,

One thing I would say is that dividing by the baseline doesn't change
the fact that your single condition images are non-negative so
comparing them to zero is not a statistically meaningful thing to do.
If you want to compare to a baseline you should do a paired t-test
between baseline and activation images and I would make the windows
for both the same length.

Regarding the difference between conditions, there is no mathematical
reason to expect that you will always get significant results at the
source level if you get a significant difference at the sensor level
and vice versa. The full brain correction at the source level is quite
severe and only very strong effects would survive it. As discussed in
this guidelines paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23046981)
it doesn't really make sense to do stats at the sensor and source
level for the same effect. You should only test for your effect once
and that test should be properly corrected for multiple comparisons
etc. If you then want to say something about the sources you could
show the uncorrected map and say that it's only thresholded for
visualisation purposes since the statistical test has already been
done at the sensor level.

Finally for oscillatory activity beamforming approach might work
better than MSP so perhaps you should try the EBB option.

Best,

Vladimir

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Pomper, Ulrich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> I am having some difficulties getting reasonable results for a MEG
> time-frequency source localization. I’ve attached the respective results in
> a figure (apologies for the low resolution).
>
> The data are from 23 participants doing an auditory experiment.
> Specifically, I’m showing two different conditions of 1 sec duration during
> which participants listened to sounds.
>
> I started out analysing the data in fieldtrip, and found significant
> differences between the conditions in the alpha band, at a large
> fronto-central cluster (top row of my figure).
>
> As a first interesting/ strange point, the scalp topography in SPM (top row,
> right of the FT topographies) is slightly different, although still showing
> the largest difference at anterior sites.
>
>
>
> In the middle row of the figure you can see the activity in source space
> calculated in SPM, by calculating the relative change to baseline for both
> conditions (activity/ baseline; left and middle plots) and the difference
> between the two conditions (right plot). In the bottom part of the figure
> are the source statistics. Left and middle plots show a one-sample ttest of
> baseline corrected data (activity divided by BL) against 0 for both
> conditions. Right plot shows a paired ttest between baseline corrected
> conditions.
>
>
> The source activity/stats of the 2 conditions alone still line up with the
> scalp data (maximum alpha at occipital regions), and are highly significant.
>
> Importantly however, the statistical difference between the conditions looks
> rather different from what I found at the scalp. Further, unlike the scalp
> statistics, the effects for the comparison between conditions at source
> level are very small, not surviving any sort of correction (the data shown
> are uncorrected).
>
> Below I give a short summary of the steps I took to arrive at these results.
>
> I would very much appreciate it if anyone could give me a couple of
> suggestions on why my source data dont fit my scalp results, and what I
> could change or improve in my processing pipeline.
>
> (By the way, I have already tried to compare the conditions without baseline
> correction, as well as with subtracting and then dividing by the baseline.
> Both give similar results to what is shown here)
>
>
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>
> -Data cleaning and preprocessing in SPM is identical to the way I did it in
> fieldtrip. SPM produces comparable scalp-level data.
>
>
> -For the forward model I use a template, based on the SPM manual suggestions
> (template = 1; meshres = 2; forward.eeg = 'EEG BEM'; forward.meg = 'Single
> Shell';)
>
>
> -For the inversion I use a time-window from -1000 to 4500 ms, which includes
> all the auditory stimulation but excludes the response interval. I chose a
> rather long baseline to be able to estimate the baseline alpha band activity
> well enough. [BTW I here only show data going up to 2500 ms, but inverting
> up to 4500 ms is important as I have later intervals of interest as well
> which I want to compare with earlier ones]
>
>
> -Further, I restrict the inversion to the freq of interest (8-14 Hz), use no
> hanning taper, and invert both conditions at the same time.
>
>
> -I then do a group inversion using the greedy search MSP.
>
>
> -My parameters for the first level contrasts look as follows:
>
>  WOI = [-750 -250
>
>     1500 2500];
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.val = 1
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.woi = WOI(win,:);
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.foi = [8 14];
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.ctype = 'induced';
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.space = 1;
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.format = 'image';
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.meeg.source.results.smoothing = 8;
>
>
>
>
>
> -Then, I calculate the relative change compared to baseline using the
> expression
>
> '((i2)./i1)'
>
> with i1 being the baseline and i2 my window of interest.
>
>
> Finally I either just plot the subject average of the resulting images
> (middle line of figure), run a one-sample ttest for each condition (bottom
> left and middle plot), or contrast my 2 conditions via a paired ttest
> (bottom left).
>
>
>
> As the paired ttest gives the strange results, here are the parameters I use
> for it:
>
>
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.des.pt.gmsca = 0;    % Itried gms
> on, but the results are quite similar
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.des.pt.ancova = 0;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.cov = struct('c', {}, 'cname', {},
> 'iCFI', {}, 'iCC', {});
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.multi_cov = struct('files', {},
> 'iCFI', {}, 'iCC', {});
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.masking.tm.tm_none = 1;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.masking.im = 1;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.masking.em = {''};
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.globalc.g_omit = 1;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.globalm.gmsca.gmsca_no = 1;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.factorial_design.globalm.glonorm = 1;
>
>
>
> spm_jobman('run', matlabbatch);
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> clear matlabbatch
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.fmri_est.spmmat = {[path, '\SPM.mat']};
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.fmri_est.write_residuals = 0;
>
> matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.fmri_est.method.Classical = 1;
>
> spm_jobman('run', matlabbatch);
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    % Define contrasts
>
>
>
>                 clear matlabbatch
>
>                 spm_jobman('initcfg')
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.spmmat(1) =  {[path,
> '\SPM.mat']};
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{1}.tcon.name =
> 'ttest1';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{1}.tcon.weights = [1
> -1];
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{1}.tcon.sessrep =
> 'repl';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{2}.tcon.name =
> 'ttest2';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{2}.tcon.weights = [-1
> 1];
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.consess{2}.tcon.sessrep =
> 'repl';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.con.delete = 1;
>
>                 spm_jobman('run', matlabbatch);
>
>                 disp('Set contrasts ok')
>
>
>
>
>
>             % Display Results
>
>                spm('defaults', 'EEG');
>
>                 clear matlabbatch
>
>                 spm_jobman('initcfg')
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.spmmat =  {[path,
> '\SPM.mat']};
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).titlestr =
> 'ttest1';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).contrasts = 1;
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).threshdesc =
> 'none';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).thresh = 0.05;
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).extent = 0;
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.conspec(1).mask.none = 1;
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.print = 'ps';
>
>                 matlabbatch{1}.spm.stats.results.write.none = 1;
>
>                 spm_jobman('run', matlabbatch);
>
>                 clear matlabbatch
>
>

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