Reliability and validity of structural equation modeling applied to neuroimaging data: A simulation study

Structural equation modeling aims at quantifying the strength of causal relationships within a set of interacting variables. Although the literature emphasizes that large sample sizes are required, this method is increasingly used with neuroimaging data of a limited number of subjects to study the relationships between cerebral structures. Here, we use a simulation approach to evaluate its ability to provide accurate information under the constraints of neuroimaging. Artificial samples representing the activity of a virtual set of structures were generated under both recursive and non-recursive connectivity models. Structural equation modeling was performed on these samples, and the quality of the analyses was evaluated by directly comparing the estimated path coefficients with the original ones. The validity and the reliability are shown to decrease with sample size, but the estimated models respect the relative strength of path coefficients in a large percentage of cases. The "smoothing method" appears to be the most appropriate to prevent improper solutions. Both the experimental error and the external structures influencing the network have a weak influence. Accordingly, structural equation modeling can be applied to neuroimaging data, but confidence intervals should be presented together with the path coefficient estimation.

[1]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[2]  Henning Scheich,et al.  Advances in metabolic mapping techniques for brain imaging of behavioral and learning functions , 1992 .

[3]  Rémi Gervais,et al.  Functional coupling in rat central olfactory pathways: a coherence analysis , 1999, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  D. P. Russell,et al.  Functional Clustering: Identifying Strongly Interactive Brain Regions in Neuroimaging Data , 1998, NeuroImage.

[5]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Network analysis of cortical visual pathways mapped with PET , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[6]  James C. Anderson,et al.  The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis , 1984 .

[7]  Scott Peltier,et al.  Connectivity exploration with structural equation modeling: an fMRI study of bimanual motor coordination , 2005, NeuroImage.

[8]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling , 2003, NeuroImage.

[9]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  Can Meaningful Effective Connectivities Be Obtained between Auditory Cortical Regions? , 2001, NeuroImage.

[11]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[12]  Andrea B Protzner,et al.  Testing effective connectivity changes with structural equation modeling: What does a bad model tell us? , 2006, Human brain mapping.

[13]  Anthony Randal McIntosh,et al.  Towards a network theory of cognition , 2000, Neural Networks.

[14]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Testing parameters in structural equation modeling: every "one" matters. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[15]  Peter Stoeter,et al.  Altered effective connectivity during working memory performance in schizophrenia: a study with fMRI and structural equation modeling , 2003, NeuroImage.

[16]  A. McIntosh,et al.  Structural modeling of functional neural pathways mapped with 2-deoxyglucose: effects of acoustic startle habituation on the auditory system , 1991, Brain Research.

[17]  A. R. McIntosh,et al.  The Application of Structural Modeling to Metabolic Mapping of Functional Neural Systems , 1992 .

[18]  A. R. McIntosh,et al.  Network analysis of functional auditory pathways mapped with fluorodeoxyglucose: associative effects of a tone conditioned as a Pavlovian excitor or inhibitor , 1993, Brain Research.

[19]  Cheryl L Grady,et al.  Age‐related differences in the functional connectivity of the hippocampus during memory encoding , 2003, Hippocampus.

[20]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing dynamic causal models , 2004, NeuroImage.

[21]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[22]  W. Velicer,et al.  Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  An alternative two stage least squares (2SLS) estimator for latent variable equations , 1996 .

[24]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A Global Estimator Unbiased by Local Changes , 2001, NeuroImage.

[25]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models: Two Types of Sample Size Effects , 1990 .

[26]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  Estimation of the cortical connectivity by high-resolution EEG and structural equation modeling: Simulations and application to finger tapping data , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Effective Connectivity and Intersubject Variability: Using a Multisubject Network to Test Differences and Commonalities , 2002, NeuroImage.

[28]  A R McIntosh,et al.  Frontotemporal interactions in face encoding and recognition. , 1999, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[29]  Jesper L. R. Andersson,et al.  How to Estimate Global Activity Independent of Changes in Local Activity , 1997, NeuroImage.

[30]  Danielle S. Bassett,et al.  A validated network of effective amygdala connectivity , 2007, NeuroImage.

[31]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Large-scale neural models and dynamic causal modelling , 2006, NeuroImage.

[32]  Larry Cahill,et al.  Amygdala modulation of parahippocampal and frontal regions during emotionally influenced memory storage , 2003, NeuroImage.

[33]  J. S. Tanaka "How Big Is Big Enough?": Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables. , 1987 .

[34]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size , 1988 .