» Articles » PMID: 20533565

A Mutual Information-based Metric for Evaluation of FMRI Data-processing Approaches

Overview
Journal Hum Brain Mapp
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Neurology
Date 2010 Jun 10
PMID 20533565
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We propose a novel approach for evaluating the performance of activation detection in real (experimental) datasets using a new mutual information (MI)-based metric and compare its sensitivity to several existing performance metrics in both simulated and real datasets. The proposed approach is based on measuring the approximate MI between the fMRI time-series of a validation dataset and a calculated activation map (thresholded label map or continuous map) from an independent training dataset. The MI metric is used to measure the amount of information preserved during the extraction of an activation map from experimentally related fMRI time-series. The processing method that preserves maximal information between the maps and related time-series is proposed to be superior. The results on simulation datasets for multiple analysis models are consistent with the results of ROC curves, but are shown to have lower information content than for real datasets, limiting their generalizability. In real datasets for group analyses using the general linear model (GLM; FSL4 and SPM5), we show that MI values are (1) larger for groups of 15 versus 10 subjects and (2) more sensitive measures than reproducibility (for continuous maps) or Jaccard overlap metrics (for thresholded maps). We also show that (1) for an increasing fraction of nominally active voxels, both MI and false discovery rate (FDR) increase, and (2) at a fixed FDR, GLM using FSL4 tends to extract more voxels and more information than SPM5 using the default processing techniques in each package.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of the Hierarchical Correspondence between the Human Brain and Artificial Neural Networks: A Review.

Pham T, Matsui T, Chikazoe J Biology (Basel). 2023; 12(10).

PMID: 37887040 PMC: 10604784. DOI: 10.3390/biology12101330.


Planning ahead: Predictable switching recruits task-active and resting-state networks.

Kurtin D, Arana-Oiarbide G, Lorenz R, Violante I, Hampshire A Hum Brain Mapp. 2023; 44(15):5030-5046.

PMID: 37471699 PMC: 10502652. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.26430.


Simultaneous BOLD detection and incomplete fMRI data reconstruction.

Ferdowsi S, Abolghasemi V Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017; 56(4):599-610.

PMID: 28840461 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-017-1707-x.


Interpretability of Multivariate Brain Maps in Linear Brain Decoding: Definition, and Heuristic Quantification in Multivariate Analysis of MEG Time-Locked Effects.

Kia S, Vega Pons S, Weisz N, Passerini A Front Neurosci. 2017; 10:619.

PMID: 28167896 PMC: 5253369. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00619.


A statistical framework for neuroimaging data analysis based on mutual information estimated via a gaussian copula.

Ince R, Giordano B, Kayser C, Rousselet G, Gross J, Schyns P Hum Brain Mapp. 2016; 38(3):1541-1573.

PMID: 27860095 PMC: 5324576. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23471.


References
1.
Hansen L, Larsen J, NIELSEN F, Strother S, Rostrup E, Savoy R . Generalizable patterns in neuroimaging: how many principal components?. Neuroimage. 1999; 9(5):534-44. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.1998.0425. View

2.
Friedman L, Stern H, Brown G, Mathalon D, Turner J, Glover G . Test-retest and between-site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007; 29(8):958-72. PMC: 3670112. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20440. View

3.
McGonigle D, Howseman A, Athwal B, Friston K, Frackowiak R, Holmes A . Variability in fMRI: an examination of intersession differences. Neuroimage. 2000; 11(6 Pt 1):708-34. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0562. View

4.
Kovacevic N, Henderson J, Chan E, Lifshitz N, Bishop J, Evans A . A three-dimensional MRI atlas of the mouse brain with estimates of the average and variability. Cereb Cortex. 2004; 15(5):639-45. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhh165. View

5.
Strother S, Lange N, ANDERSON J, Schaper K, Rehm K, Hansen L . Activation pattern reproducibility: measuring the effects of group size and data analysis models. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010; 5(4):312-6. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1997)5:4<312::AID-HBM18>3.0.CO;2-F. View