» Articles » PMID: 38409458

A Tutorial on Fitting Joint Models of M/EEG and Behavior to Understand Cognition

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2024 Feb 27
PMID 38409458
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We present motivation and practical steps necessary to find parameter estimates of joint models of behavior and neural electrophysiological data. This tutorial is written for researchers wishing to build joint models of human behavior and scalp and intracranial electroencephalographic (EEG) or magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data, and more specifically those researchers who seek to understand human cognition. Although these techniques could easily be applied to animal models, the focus of this tutorial is on human participants. Joint modeling of M/EEG and behavior requires some knowledge of existing computational and cognitive theories, M/EEG artifact correction, M/EEG analysis techniques, cognitive modeling, and programming for statistical modeling implementation. This paper seeks to give an introduction to these techniques as they apply to estimating parameters from neurocognitive models of M/EEG and human behavior, and to evaluate model results and compare models. Due to our research and knowledge on the subject matter, our examples in this paper will focus on testing specific hypotheses in human decision-making theory. However, most of the motivation and discussion of this paper applies across many modeling procedures and applications. We provide Python (and linked R) code examples in the tutorial and appendix. Readers are encouraged to try the exercises at the end of the document.

Citing Articles

Complementary benefits of multivariate and hierarchical models for identifying individual differences in cognitive control.

Freund M, Chen R, Chen G, Braver T Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2025; 3.

PMID: 39957839 PMC: 11823007. DOI: 10.1162/imag_a_00447.


Emotion brain network topology in healthy subjects following passive listening to different auditory stimuli.

Mohd Rashid M, Ab Rani N, Kannan M, Abdullah M, Ab Ghani M, Kamel N PeerJ. 2024; 12:e17721.

PMID: 39040935 PMC: 11262303. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17721.


Complementary benefits of multivariate and hierarchical models for identifying individual differences in cognitive control.

Freund M, Chen R, Chen G, Braver T bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38712215 PMC: 11071497. DOI: 10.1101/2024.04.24.591032.

References
1.
Aho K, Derryberry D, Peterson T . Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology. 2014; 95(3):631-6. DOI: 10.1890/13-1452.1. View

2.
Au J, Katz B, Moon A, Talati S, Abagis T, Jonides J . Post-training stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex impairs working memory training performance. J Neurosci Res. 2021; 99(10):2351-2363. PMC: 8273206. DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24784. View

3.
Bamber , van Santen JP . How to Assess a Model's Testability and Identifiability. J Math Psychol. 2000; 44(1):20-40. DOI: 10.1006/jmps.1999.1275. View

4.
Bode S, Sewell D, Lilburn S, Forte J, Smith P, Stahl J . Predicting perceptual decision biases from early brain activity. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(36):12488-98. PMC: 6621270. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1708-12.2012. View

5.
Boehm U, Van Maanen L, Forstmann B, van Rijn H . Trial-by-trial fluctuations in CNV amplitude reflect anticipatory adjustment of response caution. Neuroimage. 2014; 96:95-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.063. View