/
Topological Inference Topological Inference

Topological Inference - PowerPoint Presentation

karlyn-bohler
karlyn-bohler . @karlyn-bohler
Follow
377 views
Uploaded On 2018-01-11

Topological Inference - PPT Presentation

Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course London May 2014 Many thanks to Justin Chumbley Tom Nichols and Gareth Barnes for slides ID: 622646

random field topological inference field random inference topological level null smoothness voxels tests hypothesis threshold spatial volume family wise

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Topological Inference" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Topological Inference

Guillaume FlandinWellcome Trust Centre for NeuroimagingUniversity College London

SPM CourseLondon, May 2014

Many thanks to Justin

Chumbley

, Tom Nichols and Gareth Barnes

for slidesSlide2

 

 

Contrast

c

Random

Field Theory

 

 Slide3

Statistical Parametric Maps

mm

mm

mm

time

mm

time

frequency

fMRI, VBM,

M/EEG source reconstruction

M/EEG 2D time-frequency

M/EEG

2D+t

scalp-time

M/EEG 1D channel-time

time

mmSlide4

Inference at a single voxel

Null distribution of test statistic T

 

u

Decision rule (threshold)

u

:

determines false positive

rate

α

Null Hypothesis H

0

:

zero activation

Choose

u

to give acceptable

α

under

H

0Slide5

Multiple tests

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

Signal

If we have 100,000 voxels,

α

=

0.05

5,000

false positive

voxels.

This is clearly undesirable; to correct for this we can define a null hypothesis for a collection of tests.

NoiseSlide6

Multiple tests

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

t

u

11.3%

11.3%

12.5%

10.8%

11.5%

10.0%

10.7%

11.2%

10.2%

9.5%

Use of ‘uncorrected’

p

-value,

α

=0.1

Percentage of Null Pixels that are False Positives

If we have 100,000 voxels,

α

=

0.05

5,000

false positive

voxels.

This is clearly undesirable; to correct for this we can define a null hypothesis for a collection of tests.Slide7

Family-Wise Null Hypothesis

FWE

Use of

‘corrected

p

-value,

α

=0.1

Use of ‘uncorrected’

p

-value,

α

=0.1

Family-Wise

Null Hypothesis

:

Activation is zero everywhere

If we reject a voxel null hypothesis at

any

voxel,

we reject the family-wise Null hypothesis

A FP

anywhere

in the image gives a

Family Wise Error

(FWE)

Family-Wise Error rate (FWER) = ‘

corrected

p

-valueSlide8

Bonferroni correction

The Family-Wise Error rate (FWER),

αFWE, for a family of

N tests follows the inequality

:

where

α

is the test-wise error rate.

 

 

Therefore, to ensure a particular FWER choose:

This correction does

not require the tests to be independent but becomes very stringent if dependence.Slide9

Spatial correlations

100 x 100 independent tests

Spatially correlated tests (FWHM=10)

Bonferroni is too conservative for spatial correlated data.

Discrete data

Spatially extended data

10,000 voxels

(uncorrected

)

 Slide10

Random Field Theory

 Consider a statistic image as a discretisation of a continuous underlying

random field. Use results from continuous random field theory.

lattice representationSlide11

Topological inference

Topological feature:

Peak height

space

intensity

Peak level inferenceSlide12

Topological inference

Topological feature:

Cluster extent

space

intensity

u

clus

u

clus

:

c

luster-forming threshold

Cluster level inferenceSlide13

Topological inference

Topological feature:

Number of clusters

space

intensity

u

clus

u

clus

:

c

luster-forming threshold

c

Set level inferenceSlide14

 

RFT and Euler Characteristic

Euler Characteristic

:

Topological

measure

= #

blobs - # holes

at high

threshold

u

:

= #

blobs

 Slide15

Expected Euler Characteristic

 

2D Gaussian Random Field

100 x 100 Gaussian Random Field

with FWHM=10 smoothing

(

)

 

Search volume

Roughness

(1/smoothness)

ThresholdSlide16

Smoothness

Smoothness parameterised in terms of FWHM:Size of Gaussian kernel required to smooth i.i.d. noise to have same smoothness as observed null (standardized) data.

FWHM

1

2

3

4

2

4

6

8

10

1

3

5

7

9

RESELS (Resolution Elements):

1 RESEL

=

RESEL Count

R = v

olume

of search region in units of

smoothness

 

Eg

: 10 voxels, 2.5

FWHM,

4

RESELS

The number of resels

is similar, but not identical to

the number

independent

observations.

Smoothness estimated from spatial derivatives of standardised residuals:

Yields an RPV image containing local roughness estimation.Slide17

Random Field intuition

Corrected p-value for statistic value

t

Statistic value

t

increases ?

decreases (better signal)

Search volume increases

(

(

) ↑ )

?

increases (more severe correction)

Smoothness increases ( ||1/2

↓ ) ?

decreases (less severe correction)

 

 Slide18

Random Field: Unified Theory

General form for expected Euler characteristic

t, F & 2

fields

restricted search regions

D

dimensions

R

d (

W):

d-dimensional Lipschitz-Killing curvatures of W

(

intrinsic volumes

):

– function of dimension,

space W and smoothness:

R

0(W) = (W) Euler characteristic of W R1(

W) = resel

diameter

R

2(

W) =

resel surface area

R3(W) = resel

volume

 rd

(

u) : d-dimensional EC density of

the field

– function of dimension and threshold,

specific for RF type:

E.g. Gaussian RF:

r

0

(

u

) = 1-

(

u

)

r

1

(

u

) = (4 ln2)

1/2

exp

(-

u

2

/2) / (2

p

)

r

2

(

u

) = (4 ln2) u

exp

(-

u

2

/2) / (2

p

)

3/2

r

3

(

u

) = (4 ln2)

3/2

(

u

2

-1)

exp

(-

u

2

/2) / (2

p)2 r4(u) = (4 ln2)2 (u3 -3u) exp(-u2

/2) / (2p)5/2

 Slide19

Peak, cluster and set level inference

Peak level

test:

h

eight of local maxima

Cluster level test:

spatial extent above u

Set level test:

number of clusters above u

Sensitivity

Regional specificity

: significant at the set level

: significant at the cluster level

: significant at the peak level

L

1

> spatial extent threshold

L

2

< spatial extent thresholdSlide20

Random Field Theory

The statistic image is assumed to be a good lattice

representation of an underlying continuous stationary random field.Typically, FWHM > 3 voxels(combination of intrinsic and extrinsic smoothing)Smoothness of the data is unknown and estimated:very precise estimate by pooling over voxels  stationarity

assumptions (esp. relevant for cluster size results).

A

priori

hypothesis about where an activation should be,

reduce

search

volume

 Small Volume Correction:

mask defined by (probabilistic) anatomical atlasesmask defined by separate "functional localisers"mask defined by orthogonal contrasts

(spherical) search volume around previously reported coordinatesSlide21

Conclusion

There is a multiple testing problem and corrections

have to be applied on p-values (for the volume of interest only (see SVC)).Inference is made about topological features (peak height, spatial extent, number of clusters).Use results from the Random Field Theory.Control of FWER

(probability of a false positive anywhere in the image) for a space of any dimension and shape.Slide22

References

Friston KJ, Frith CD, Liddle PF, Frackowiak RS. Comparing functional (PET) images: the assessment of significant change. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism

, 1991..Worsley KJ, Evans AC, Marrett S, Neelin P. A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 1992.Worsley KJ, Marrett S, Neelin P,

Vandal AC, Friston KJ, Evans AC. A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Human Brain Mapping,1996.

Chumbley

J,

Worsley

KJ , Flandin G,

and

Friston

KJ. Topological FDR for neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 2010.

Kilner J and Friston KJ. Topological inference for EEG and MEG data. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2010.

Bias in a common EEG and MEG statistical analysis and how to avoid it. Kilner J. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2013.