Multivariate dynamical systems models for estimating causal interactions in fMRI

Analysis of dynamical interactions between distributed brain areas is of fundamental importance for understanding cognitive information processing. However, estimating dynamic causal interactions between brain regions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) poses several unique challenges. For one, fMRI measures Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) signals, rather than the underlying latent neuronal activity. Second, regional variations in the hemodynamic response function (HRF) can significantly influence estimation of causal interactions between them. Third, causal interactions between brain regions can change with experimental context over time. To overcome these problems, we developed a novel state-space Multivariate Dynamical Systems (MDS) model to estimate intrinsic and experimentally-induced modulatory causal interactions between multiple brain regions. A probabilistic graphical framework is then used to estimate the parameters of MDS as applied to fMRI data. We show that MDS accurately takes into account regional variations in the HRF and estimates dynamic causal interactions at the level of latent signals. We develop and compare two estimation procedures using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and variational Bayesian (VB) approaches for inferring model parameters. Using extensive computer simulations, we demonstrate that, compared to Granger causal analysis (GCA), MDS exhibits superior performance for a wide range of signal to noise ratios (SNRs), sample length and network size. Our simulations also suggest that GCA fails to uncover causal interactions when there is a conflict between the direction of intrinsic and modulatory influences. Furthermore, we show that MDS estimation using VB methods is more robust and performs significantly better at low SNRs and shorter time series than MDS with MLE. Our study suggests that VB estimation of MDS provides a robust method for estimating and interpreting causal network interactions in fMRI data.

[1]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Probabilistic Graphical Models - Principles and Techniques , 2009 .

[2]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Six problems for causal inference from fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[3]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modeling , 2010, Scholarpedia.

[4]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  Dynamic Granger causality based on Kalman filter for evaluation of functional network connectivity in fMRI data , 2010, NeuroImage.

[5]  K. Tamura,et al.  Metabolic engineering of plant alkaloid biosynthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 2001 .

[6]  Karl J. Friston.  Modalities, Modes, and Models in Functional Neuroimaging , 2009, Science.

[7]  W. Hesse,et al.  The use of time-variant EEG Granger causality for inspecting directed interdependencies of neural assemblies , 2003, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[8]  Radford M. Neal.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[9]  J. Fuster.  The cognit: a network model of cortical representation. , 2006, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[10]  Karl J. Friston.  Dynamic causal modeling and Granger causality Comments on: The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution , 2011, NeuroImage.

[11]  Kewei Chen,et al.  Identification and validation of effective connectivity networks in functional magnetic resonance imaging using switching linear dynamic systems , 2010, NeuroImage.

[12]  Anil K. Seth,et al.  A MATLAB toolbox for Granger causal connectivity analysis , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[13]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Mapping directed influence over the brain using Granger causality and fMRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[14]  S. Bressler,et al.  Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Klaas E. Stephan,et al.  The anatomical basis of functional localization in the cortex , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[16]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1971 .

[17]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Bayesian deconvolution fMRI data using bilinear dynamical systems , 2008, NeuroImage.

[18]  William D. Penny,et al.  Bayesian nonstationary autoregressive models for biomedical signal analysis , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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

[20]  Karl J. Friston.  Causal Modelling and Brain Connectivity in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2009, PLoS biology.

[21]  A. Seth.  Causal connectivity of evolved neural networks during behavior. , 2005, Network.

[22]  Steven L. Bressler,et al.  Wiener–Granger Causality: A well established methodology , 2011, NeuroImage.

[23]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution , 2011, NeuroImage.

[24]  V. Menon,et al.  A critical role for the right fronto-insular cortex in switching between central-executive and default-mode networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Jianfeng Feng,et al.  Uncovering Interactions in the Frequency Domain , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[26]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Effective connectivity during haptic perception: A study using Granger causality analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data , 2008, NeuroImage.

[27]  R. Rangayyan,et al.  Biomedical Signal Analysis , 2015 .

[28]  Lester Melie-García,et al.  Estimating brain functional connectivity with sparse multivariate autoregression , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Bilinear dynamical systems , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Investigating directed cortical interactions in time-resolved fMRI data using vector autoregressive modeling and Granger causality mapping. , 2003, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[31]  P. Young,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[32]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Variational Bayesian identification and prediction of stochastic nonlinear dynamic causal models , 2009, Physica D. Nonlinear phenomena.

[33]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Effect of hemodynamic variability on Granger causality analysis of fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[34]  R. Goebel,et al.  Investigating directed influences between activated brain areas in a motor-response task using fMRI. , 2006, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[35]  Otto W. Witte,et al.  Modelling and analysis of time-variant directed interrelations between brain regions based on BOLD-signals , 2009, NeuroImage.

[36]  Juan Zhou,et al.  Learning effective brain connectivity with dynamic Bayesian networks , 2007, NeuroImage.

[37]  Kevin Murphy,et al.  Switching Kalman Filters , 1998 .

[38]  Theiler,et al.  Generating surrogate data for time series with several simultaneously measured variables. , 1994, Physical review letters.

[39]  João Ricardo Sato,et al.  A method to produce evolving functional connectivity maps during the course of an fMRI experiment using wavelet-based time-varying Granger causality , 2006, NeuroImage.

[40]  C. Segebarth,et al.  Identifying Neural Drivers with Functional MRI: An Electrophysiological Validation , 2008, PLoS biology.

[41]  G. Glover.  Deconvolution of Impulse Response in Event-Related BOLD fMRI1 , 1999, NeuroImage.

[42]  Michael E. Tipping.  Sparse Bayesian Learning and the Relevance Vector Machine , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[43]  Jianfeng Feng,et al.  A Novel Extended Granger Causal Model Approach Demonstrates Brain Hemispheric Differences during Face Recognition Learning , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[44]  Lawrence R. Rabiner,et al.  A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[45]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A Dynamic Causal Modeling Study on Category Effects: BottomUp or TopDown Mediation? , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.