Analyzing MEG Data with Granger Causality: Promises and Pitfalls

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter we begin by introducing the basic idea of Granger causality and discussing its applications to local field potential data. We then proceed to comment on recent results of applying Granger causality to MEG data. Recognizing that Granger causality is frequently used to examine neural activity recorded during stimulus processing, we point out the adverse effects of the inevitable trial-to-trial variability of stimulus-evoked responses on Granger causality estimation. We end the chapter by discussing the future prospects of using Granger causality in basic and clinical neuroscience research.

Keywords

Granger causality MEG Local field potential Trial-to-trial variability Stimulus-evoked responses 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andersen P, Andersson SA (1968) Physiological basis of the Alpha Rhythm. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker SN, Pinches EM, Lemon RN (2003) Synchronization in monkey motor cortex during a precision grip task. II. Effect of oscillatory activity on corticospinal output. J Neurophysiol 89(4):1941–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger H (1929) Über das Elektroencephalogramm des Menschen (On the electroencephalogram of man). Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr 87:527–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollimunta A, Chen Y, Schroeder CE, Ding M (2008) Neuronal mechanisms of cortical alpha oscillations in awake-behaving macaques. J Neurosci 28(40):9976–9988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollimunta A, Chen Y, Schroeder CE, Ding M (2009) Characterizing oscillatory cortical networks with Granger causality. In: Rubin J, Josic K, Matias M, Romo R (eds) Coherent behavior in neuronal networks. Springer, New York, pp 169–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brovelli A, Ding M, Ledberg A, Chen Y, Nakamura R, Bressler SL (2004) Beta oscillations in a large-scale sensorimotor cortical network: directional influences revealed by Granger causality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(26):9849–9854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Bressler SL, Ding M (2006) Frequency decomposition of conditional Granger causality and application to multivariate neural field potential data. J Neurosci Methods 150(2):228–237CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale AM, Liu AK, Fischl BR, Buckner RL, Belliveau JW, Lewine JD, Halgren E (2000) Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 26(1):55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding M, Chen Y, Bressler SL (2006) Granger causality: basic theory and application to neuroscience. In: Winterhalder M, Schelter B, Timmer J (eds) Handbook of time series analysis. WILEY, Berlin, pp 437–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangun GR (2002) Cognitive neuroscience. Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Geweke J (1982) Measurement of linear-dependence and feedback between multiple time-series. J Am Stat Assoc 77(378):304–313CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND (2002) Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. Am J Psychiatry 159(10):1642–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gow DW Jr, Segawa JA, Ahlfors SP, Lin FH (2008) Lexical influences on speech perception: a Granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates. NeuroImage 43(3):614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Hämäläinen M, Hari R, Ilmoniemi RJ, Knuutila J, Lounasmaa OV (1993) Magnetoencephalography—theory, instrumentation, and applications to noninvasive studies of the working human brain. Rev Mod Phys 65(2):413–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu Y, Huang H, McGinnis M, Keil A, Ding M (2012) Neural substrate of the late positive potential in emotional processing. J Neurosci 32(42):14563–14572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moratti S, Saugar C, Strange BA (2011) Prefrontal-Occipitoparietal Coupling Underlies Late Latency Human Neuronal Responses to Emotion. J Neurosci 31(47):17278–17286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ploner M, Schoffelen JM, Schnitzler A, Gross J (2009) Functional integration within the human pain system as revealed by Granger causality. Hum Brain Mapp 30(12):4025–4032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rothwell JC, Traub MM, Day BL, Obeso JA, Thomas PK, Marsden CD (1982) Manual motor-performance in a deafferented man. Brain 105(3):515–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rushworth MFS, Nixon PD, Passingham RE (1997) Parietal cortex and movement 1. Movement selection and reaching. Exp Brain Res 117(2):292–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silva LR, Amitai Y, Connors BW (1991) Intrinsic oscillations of neocortex generated by layer-5 pyramidal neurons. Science 251(4992):432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang X, Chen Y, Ding M (2008) Estimating Granger causality after stimulus onset: a cautionary note. NeuroImage 41(3):767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang X, Ding M (2011) Relation between P300 and event-related theta-band synchronization: a single-trial analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 122(5):916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiener N (1956) The theory of prediction. In: Beckenbach EF (ed) Modern mathematics for engineers, Chap 8. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Xu L, Stoica P, Li J, Bressler SL, Shao X, Ding M (2009) ASEO: a method for the simultaneous estimation of single-trial event-related potentials and ongoing brain activities. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations