Advertisement

Adjusting the Neuroimaging Statistical Inferences for Nonstationarity

  • Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi
  • Stephen M. Smith
  • Thomas E. Nichols
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5761)

Abstract

In neuroimaging cluster-based inference has generally been found to be more powerful than voxel-wise inference [1]. However standard cluster-based methods assume stationarity (constant smoothness), while under nonstationarity clusters are larger in smooth regions just by chance, making false positive risk spatially variant. Hayasaka et al. [2] proposed a Random Field Theory (RFT) based nonstationarity adjustment for cluster inference and validated the method in terms of controlling the overall family-wise false positive rate. The RFT-based methods, however, have never been directly assessed in terms of homogeneity of local false positive risk. In this work we propose a new cluster size adjustment that accounts for local smoothness, based on local empirical cluster size distributions and a two-pass permutation method. We also propose a new approach to measure homogeneity of local false positive risk, and use this method to compare the RFT-based and our new empirical adjustment methods. We apply these techniques to both cluster-based and a related inference, threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE). Using simulated and real data we confirm the expected heterogeneity in false positive risk with unadjusted cluster inference but find that RFT-based adjustment does not fully eliminate heterogeneity; we also observe that our proposed empirical adjustment dramatically increases the homogeneity and TFCE inference is generally quite robust to nonstationarity.

Keywords

Cluster Size Local Smoothness Null Data Random Field Theory Empirical Adjustment 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Friston, K., Holmes, A., Poline, J., Price, C., Frith, C.: Detecting activations in pet and fmri: levels of inference and power. NeuroImage 4, 223–235 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hayasaka, S., Phan, K., Liberzon, I., Worsley, K., Nichols, T.: Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods. Neuroimage 22(2), 676–687 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poline, J., Worsley, K., Evans, A., Friston, K.: Combining spatial extent and peak intensity to test for activations in functional imaging. Neuroimage 5(2), 83–96 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forman, S., Cohen, J., Fitzgerald, J., Eddy, W., Mintun, M., Noll, D.: Improved assessment of significant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri): use of a cluster-size threshold. Magn. Reson. Med. 33, 636–647 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ledberg, A., Åkerman, S., Roland, P.: Estimation of the probability of 3d clusters in functional brain images. Neuroimage 8, 113–128 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Worsley, K., Marrett, S., Neelin, P., Vandal, A., Friston, K., Evans, A.C.: A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Hum. Brain Mapp 4, 58–73 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmes, A., Blair, R., Watson, J., Ford, I.: Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 16(1), 7–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nichols, T., Holmes, A.: Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: a primer with examples. Hum. Brain. Mapp. 15(1), 1–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, S.M., Nichols, T.E.: Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference. Neuroimage 44(1), 83–98 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, S., Douaud, G., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Webster, M., Mackay, C., Groves, A., Nichols, T.: Threshold-free cluster enhancement: Practical examples. In: 14th Anuual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, Melbourne, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiebel, S., Poline, J., Friston, K., Holmes, A., Worsley, K.: Robust smoothness estimation in statistical parametric maps using standardized residuals from the general linear model. Neuroimage 10(6), 756–766 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flitney, D., Jenkinson, M.: Cluster analysis revisited. Technical report, FMRIB Centre, University of Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nichols, T.: Cluster analysis revisited - again: Implementing nonstationary cluster size inference. Technical report, FMRIB Centre, University of Oxford (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Smith
    • 1
  • Thomas E. Nichols
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB)University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Imaging CentreLondonUK

Personalised recommendations