Biology subjects

Taylor, P. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Taylor, P. A..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2018

A tail of two sides: Artificially doubled false positive rates in neuroimaging due to the sidedness choice with t-tests

One-sided t-tests are widely used in neuroimaging data analysis. While such a test may be applicable when investigating specific regions and prior information about directionality is present, we argue here that it is often mis-applied, with severe consequences for false positive rate (FPR) control. Conceptually, a pair of one-sided t-tests conducted in tandem (e.g., to test separately for both positive and negative effects), effectively amounts to a two-sided t-test. However, replacing the two-sided test with a pair of one-sided tests without multiple comparisons correction essentially doubles the intended FPR of statements made about the same study; that is, the actual family-wise error (FWE) of results at the whole brain level would be 10% instead of the 5% intended by the researcher. Therefore, we strongly recommend that, unless otherwise explicitly justified, two-sided t-tests be applied instead of two simultaneous one-sided t-tests.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2018

FMRI processing with AFNI: Some comments and corrections on \"Exploring the Impact of Analysis Software on Task fMRI Results\"

A recent study posted on bioRxiv by Bowring, Maumet and Nichols aimed to compare results of FMRI data that had been processed with three commonly used software packages (AFNI, FSL and SPM). Their stated purpose was to use \"default\" settings of each softwares pipeline for task-based FMRI, and then to quantify overlaps in final clustering results and to measure similarity/dissimilarity in the final outcomes of packages. While in theory the setup sounds simple (implement each packages defaults and compare results), practical realities make this difficult. For example, different softwares would recommend different spatial resolutions of the final data, but for the sake of comparisons, the same value must be used across all. Moreover, we would say that AFNI does not have an explicit default pipeline available: a wide diversity of datasets and study designs are acquired across the neuroimaging community, often requiring bespoke tailoring of basic processing rather than a \"one-size-fits-all\" pipeline. However, we do have strong recommendations for certain steps, and we are also aware that the choice of a given step might place requirements on other processing steps. Given the very clear reporting of the AFNI pipeline used in Bowring et al. paper, we take this opportunity to comment on some of these aspects of processing with AFNI here, clarifying a few mistakes therein and also offering recommendations. We provide point-by-point considerations of using AFNIs processing pipeline design tool at the individual level, afni_proc.py, along with supplementary programs; while specifically discussed in the context of the present usage, many of these choices may serve as useful starting points for broader processing. It is our intention/hope that the user should examine data quality at every step, and we demonstrate how this is facilitated in AFNI, as well.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2017

Handling Multiplicity in Neuroimaging through Bayesian Lenses with Hierarchical Modeling

Here we address the current issues of inefficiency and over-penalization in the massively univariate approach followed by the correction for multiple testing, and propose a more efficient model that pools and shares information among brain regions. Using Bayesian multilevel (BML) modeling, we control two types of error that are more relevant than the conventional false positive rate (FPR): incorrect sign (type S) and incorrect magnitude (type M). BML also aims to achieve two goals: 1) improving modeling efficiency by having one integrative model and thereby dissolving the multiple testing issue, and 2) turning the focus of conventional null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) on FPR into quality control by calibrating type S errors while maintaining a reasonable level of inference efficiency The performance and validity of this approach are demonstrated through an application at the region of interest (ROI) level, with all the regions on an equal footing: unlike the current approaches under NHST, small regions are not disadvantaged simply because of their physical size. In addition, compared to the massively univariate approach, BML may simultaneously achieve increased spatial specificity and inference efficiency, and promote results reporting in totality and transparency. The benefits of BML are illustrated in performance and quality checking using an experimental dataset. The methodology also avoids the current practice of sharp and arbitrary thresholding in the p-value funnel to which the multidimensional data are reduced. The BML approach with its auxiliary tools is available as part of the AFNI suite for general use.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2017

Intraclass correlation: improved modeling approaches and applications for neuroimaging

Intraclass correlation (ICC) is a reliability metric that gauges similarity when, for example, entities are measured under similar, or even the same, well-controlled conditions, which in MRI applications include runs/sessions, twins, parent/child, scanners, sites, etc. The popular definition and interpretation of ICC are usually framed statistically under the conventional ANOVA platform. Here, we show that the ANOVA frame-work is often limited, rigid, and inflexible in modeling capabilities. Additionally we provide a comprehensive overview of ICC analysis in its prior usage in neuroimaging. These intrinsic limitations motivate several novel improvements. Specifically, we start with the conventional ICC model under the ANOVA platform, and extend it along two dimensions: first, fixing the failure in ICC estimation when negative values occur under degen-erative circumstance, and second, incorporating reliability information of effect estimates into the ICC model. These endeavors lead to four modeling strategies: linear mixed-effects (LME), Bayesian mixed-effects (BME), multilevel mixed-effects (MME), and Bayesian multilevel mixed-effects (BMME). Compared to ANOVA, each of these four models directly provides estimates for fixed effects as well as their statistical significances, in addition to the ICC estimate. These new modeling approaches can also accommodate missing data as well as fixed effects for confounding variables. More importantly, we show that the novel MME and BMME approaches offer more accurate characterization and decomposition among the variance components, leading to more robust ICC computation. Based on these theoretical considerations and model performance comparisons with a real experimental dataset, we offer the following general-purpose recommendations. First, ICC estimation through MME or BMME is preferable when precision information is available for the effect estimate; precision information provides weights that more accurately allocate the variances in the data. When precision information is unavailable, ICC estimation through LME or the novel BME is the preferred option. Second, even though the absolute agreement version, ICC(2,1), is presently more popular in the field, the consistency version, ICC(3,1), is a practical and informative choice for whole-brain ICC analysis that achieves a well-balanced compromise when all potential fixed effects are accounted for. Third, approaches for clear, meaningful, and useful result reporting in ICC analysis are discussed. All models, ICC formulations, and related statistical testing methods have been implemented in an open source program 3dICC, which is publicly available as part of the AFNI suite. Even though our work here focuses on the whole brain level, the modeling strategy and recommendations can be equivalently applied to other situations such as voxel, region, and network levels.

neuroscience↗