Time Variant Causality Model Applied in Brain Connectivity Network Based on Event Related Potential

  • Kai Yin
  • Xiao-Jie Zhao
  • Li Yao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4232)


Granger causality model mostly used to find the interaction between different time series are more and more applied to natural neural network at present. Brain connectivity network that could imply interaction and coordination between different brain regions is a focused research of brain function. Usually synchronization and correlation are used to reveal the connectivity network based on event-related potential (ERP) signals. However, these methods lack the further information such as direction of the connectivity network. In this paper, we performed an approach to detect the direction by Granger causality model. Considering the non-stationary of ERP data, we used traditional recursive least square (RLS) algorithm to calculate time variant Granger causality. In particular, we extended the method on the significance of causality measures in order to make results more reasonable. These approaches were applied to the classic Stroop cognitive experiment to establish the causality network related to attention process mechanism.


Granger Causality Event Related Potential Electrode Pair Surrogate Data Recursive Less Square 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lee, L., Harrison, L.M., Mechelli, A.: The functional brain connectivity workshop: report and commentary. Comput. Neural. Syst. 14, R1–R15 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiener, N.: The theory of prediction. In: Beckenbach, E.F. (ed.) Modern Mathermatics for Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Granger, C.W.J.: Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geweke, J.: Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 77, 304–324 (1982)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaminski, M.J., Ding, M., Truccolo, W.A., Bressler, S.L.: Evaluating causal relations in neural systems: Granger causality, directed transfer function and statistical assessment of significance. Biol. Cybern. 85, 145–157 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brovelli, A., Ding, M., Ledberg, A., Chen, Y., Nakamura, R., Bressler, S.L.: Beta oscillatory in a large-scale sensorimotor cortical network: directional influences revealed by Granger causality. Aroc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9849–9854 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding, M., Bressler, S.L., Yang, W., Liang, H.: Short-window spectral analysis of cortical event-related potentials by adaptive multivariate autoregressive modelling: data preprocessing, model validation, and variability assessment. Biol. Cybern. 83, 35–45 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liang, H., Ding, M., Nakamura, R., Bressler, S.L.: Causal influences in primate cerebral cortex during visual pattern discrimination. NeuroReport 11, 2875–2880 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moller, E., Schack, B., Arnold, M., Witte, H.: Instantaneous multivariate EEG coherence analysis by means of adaptive high-dimensional autoregressive models. J. Neurosci. Methods 105, 143–158 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hesse, W., Moller, E., Arnold, M., Schack, B.: The use of time-variant EEG Granger causality for inspecting directed interdependencies of neural assemblies. J. Neurosci. Methods 124, 27–44 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Theiler, J., Eubank, S., Longtin, A., Galdrikian, B., Farmer, J.: Testing for nonlinearity in time series: the method of surrogate data. Physica D 58, 77–94 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peng, D.L., Guo, T.M., Wei, J.H., Xiao, L.H.: An ERP Study on Processing Stages of Children’s Stroop Effect. Sci. Tech. Engng. 4(2), 84–88 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wen, X.T., Zhao, X.J., Yao, L.: Synchrony of Basic Neuronal Network Based on Event Related EEG. In: Wang, J., Liao, X.-F., Yi, Z. (eds.) ISNN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3498, pp. 725–730. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shalev, L., Algom, D.: Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner’ s beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 26, 997–1017 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markela-Lerenc, J., Ille, N., Kaiser, S.: Prefrontal-cingulate activation during executive control: which comes first? Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 18, 278–287 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Yin
    • 1
  • Xiao-Jie Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Li Yao
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ElectronicsBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and LearningBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations