Reference : Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: Applications
Scientific journals : Article
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Neurosciences & behavior
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/84737
Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: Applications
English
Friston, Karl J [> > > >]
Glaser, Daniel E [> > > >]
Henson, Richard NA [> > > >]
Kiebel, S. [> > > >]
Phillips, Christophe mailto [Université de Liège - ULg > > Centre de recherches du cyclotron >]
Ashburner, John [> > > >]
2002
Neuroimage
Academic Press Inc Elsevier Science
16
2
484-512
Yes (verified by ORBi)
International
1053-8119
San Diego
[en] fMRI ; PET ; Serial correlations ; Random effects ; The EM algorithm ; Bayesian inference ; Hierarchical models
[en] In Friston et al. ((2002) Neuroimage 16: 465-483) we introduced empirical Bayes as a potentially useful way to estimate and make inferences about effects in hierarchical models. In this paper we present a series of models that exemplify the diversity of problems that can be addressed within this framework. In hierarchical linear observation models, both classical and empirical Bayesian approaches can be framed in terms of covariance component estimation (e.g., variance partitioning). To illustrate the use of the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm in covariance component estimation we focus first on two important problems in fMRI: nonsphericity induced by (i) serial or temporal correlations among errors and (ii) variance components caused by the hierarchical nature of multisubject studies. In hierarchical observation models, variance components at higher levels can be used as constraints on the parameter estimates of lower levels. This enables the use of parametric empirical Bayesian (PEB) estimators, as distinct from classical maximum likelihood (ML) estimates. We develop this distinction to address: (i) The difference between response estimates based on ML and the conditional means from a Bayesian approach and the implications for estimates of intersubject variability. (ii) The relationship between fixed- and random-effect analyses. (iii) The specificity and sensitivity of Bayesian inference and, finally, (iv) the relative importance of the number of scans and subjects. The forgoing is concerned with within- and between-subject variability in multisubject hierarchical fMRI studies. In the second half of this paper we turn to Bayesian inference at the first (within-voxel) level, using PET data to show how priors can be derived from the (between-voxel) distribution of activations over the brain. This application uses exactly the same ideas and formalism but, in this instance, the second level is provided by observations over voxels as opposed to subjects. The ensuing posterior probability maps (PPMs) have enhanced anatomical precision and greater face validity, in relation to underlying anatomy. Furthermore, in comparison to conventional SPMs they are not confounded by the multiple comparison problem that, in a classical context, dictates high thresholds and low sensitivity. We conclude with some general comments on Bayesian approaches to image analysis and on some unresolved issues.
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/84737
10.1006/nimg.2002.1091
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622925/description#description

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

FileCommentaryVersionSizeAccess
Restricted access
Friston_K_2002_Neuroimage_16_2_484.pdfNo commentaryAuthor postprint1.94 MBRequest copy

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.