Parameter interpretation, regularization and source localization in multivariate linear models

S. Haufe, F. Meinecke, Kai Görgen, Sven Dähne, J. Haynes, B. Blankertz, F. Biessmann
{"title":"Parameter interpretation, regularization and source localization in multivariate linear models","authors":"S. Haufe, F. Meinecke, Kai Görgen, Sven Dähne, J. Haynes, B. Blankertz, F. Biessmann","doi":"10.1109/PRNI.2014.6858522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neuroimaging data are frequently analyzed with multivariate methods. Models expressing the data as a function of underlying factors related to the brain processes under study (signals) are called forward models, while models reversing this functional relationship are called backward models. Weigth vectors of backward models (called extraction filters) indicate the measurement channels informative with respect to isolating the signals. However, being a function of both signal and noise, significant weights may be observed at channels containing pure noise, while a proportion of signal-related channels may be given zero or insignificant weight. In contrast, forward model parameters (activation patterns) may exhibit significant weights only at signal-related channels, and are therefore interpretable with respect to the origin of the brain processes under study. It is sometimes incorrectly assumed that regularization (e.g., sparsification) of backward models makes extraction filters interpretable in the same sense. However, by transforming filters into patterns of corresponding forward models, as outlined here for the linear case, this can be indeed achieved. While these considerations hold for all types of data, the distinction between filters and patterns is particularly crucial for EEG and MEG data: only activation patterns can be localized to brain anatomy using customary inverse methods. We illustrate our theoretical results using a real EEG data example.","PeriodicalId":133286,"journal":{"name":"2014 International Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Neuroimaging","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 International Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Neuroimaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/PRNI.2014.6858522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Neuroimaging data are frequently analyzed with multivariate methods. Models expressing the data as a function of underlying factors related to the brain processes under study (signals) are called forward models, while models reversing this functional relationship are called backward models. Weigth vectors of backward models (called extraction filters) indicate the measurement channels informative with respect to isolating the signals. However, being a function of both signal and noise, significant weights may be observed at channels containing pure noise, while a proportion of signal-related channels may be given zero or insignificant weight. In contrast, forward model parameters (activation patterns) may exhibit significant weights only at signal-related channels, and are therefore interpretable with respect to the origin of the brain processes under study. It is sometimes incorrectly assumed that regularization (e.g., sparsification) of backward models makes extraction filters interpretable in the same sense. However, by transforming filters into patterns of corresponding forward models, as outlined here for the linear case, this can be indeed achieved. While these considerations hold for all types of data, the distinction between filters and patterns is particularly crucial for EEG and MEG data: only activation patterns can be localized to brain anatomy using customary inverse methods. We illustrate our theoretical results using a real EEG data example.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多元线性模型中的参数解释、正则化和源定位
神经影像学数据经常用多元方法进行分析。将数据表示为与所研究的大脑过程(信号)相关的潜在因素的函数的模型称为前向模型,而颠倒这种功能关系的模型称为后向模型。后向模型的权重向量(称为提取滤波器)表明测量通道的信息与隔离信号有关。然而,作为信号和噪声的函数,在包含纯噪声的信道中可以观察到显著的权重,而一部分与信号相关的信道可能被赋予零权重或不重要的权重。相比之下,前向模型参数(激活模式)可能仅在信号相关通道中表现出显著的权重,因此可以解释所研究的大脑过程的起源。有时人们错误地认为,后向模型的正则化(例如,稀疏化)使得提取过滤器在同样的意义上是可解释的。然而,通过将过滤器转换为相应正演模型的模式,正如这里对线性情况所概述的那样,这确实可以实现。虽然这些考虑因素适用于所有类型的数据,但过滤器和模式之间的区别对脑电图和脑磁图数据尤为重要:只有激活模式可以使用习惯的逆方法定位到大脑解剖结构。我们用一个真实的脑电数据实例来说明我们的理论结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causal and anti-causal learning in pattern recognition for neuroimaging Gaussian mixture models improve fMRI-based image reconstruction Combining neuroanatomical and clinical data to improve individualized early diagnosis of schizophrenia in subjects at high familial risk Bayesian correlated component analysis for inference of joint EEG activation Permutation distributions of fMRI classification do not behave in accord with central limit theorem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1