Dynamic pattern decoding of source-reconstructed MEG or EEG data: Perspective of multivariate pattern analysis and signal leakage

Recently, an increasing number of studies have employed multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) rather than univariate analysis for the dynamic pattern decoding of event-related responses recorded with a MEG/EEG sensor. The use of the MVPA approach for source-reconstructed MEG/EEG data is uncommon. For these data, we need to consider the source orientation information and the signal leakage among brain regions. In the present study, we evaluate the perspective of the MVPA approach in the context of source orientation information and signal leakage in source-reconstructed MEG data. We perform face vs. tool object category decoding (FvsT-OCD) of event-related responses from single or multiple voxels from a brain region using a univariate analysis approach and/or the MVPA approach. We also propose and perform symmetric signal leakage correction of source-reconstructed data using an independent component analysis-based approach. FvsT-OCD using single voxel information shows higher sensitivity for the MVPA approach than univariate analysis, as the MVPA approach efficiently utilizes information on all three dipole orientations and is less affected by inter-subject variability. The MVPA approach shows higher sensitivity for FvsT-OCD when considering information from multiple voxels than for a single voxel in a brain region. This finding suggests that the MVPA approach captures the latent multivoxel distributed pattern. However, the results may be partly or entirely attributable to signal leakage between brain regions, as the sensitivity is substantially reduced after signal leakage correction. A consideration of signal leakage is therefore essential during the evaluation of MVPA outcomes.

[1]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications , 2000, Neural Networks.

[2]  J. S. Guntupalli,et al.  Decoding neural representational spaces using multivariate pattern analysis. , 2014, Annual review of neuroscience.

[3]  Marcel van Gerven,et al.  MEG-based decoding of the spatiotemporal dynamics of visual category perception , 2013, NeuroImage.

[4]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal differences between object and face processing using ERPs. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  Mechanisms of face perception. , 2008, Annual review of neuroscience.

[6]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  O. Jensen,et al.  Estimating Distributed Representations of Evoked Responses and Oscillatory Brain Activity , 2010 .

[8]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  The ventral visual pathway: an expanded neural framework for the processing of object quality , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Alina A. von Davier,et al.  Cross-Validation , 2014 .

[10]  Elsa Andrea Kirchner,et al.  A periodic spatio-spectral filter for event-related potentials , 2016, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[11]  Susan G. Wardle,et al.  Decoding Dynamic Brain Patterns from Evoked Responses: A Tutorial on Multivariate Pattern Analysis Applied to Time Series Neuroimaging Data , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Stefan Haufe,et al.  On the interpretation of weight vectors of linear models in multivariate neuroimaging , 2014, NeuroImage.

[13]  Thomas Naselaris,et al.  Resolving Ambiguities of MVPA Using Explicit Models of Representation , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Kalanit Grill-Spector,et al.  Object Recognition , 2008, Computer Vision.

[15]  Christoph Braun,et al.  Source Activity Correlation Effects on LCMV Beamformers in a Realistic Measurement Environment , 2012, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[16]  A. Norcia,et al.  A Representational Similarity Analysis of the Dynamics of Object Processing Using Single-Trial EEG Classification , 2015, PloS one.

[17]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Neural representation for object recognition in inferotemporal cortex , 2016, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[18]  Riitta Salmelin,et al.  Tracking neural coding of perceptual and semantic features of concrete nouns , 2012, NeuroImage.

[19]  Andrea Passerini,et al.  Interpretability of Multivariate Brain Maps in Linear Brain Decoding: Definition, and Heuristic Quantification in Multivariate Analysis of MEG Time-Locked Effects , 2017, Front. Neurosci..

[20]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Measuring temporal, spectral and spatial changes in electrophysiological brain network connectivity , 2014, NeuroImage.

[21]  Masaaki Kawahashi,et al.  Renovation of Journal of Visualization , 2010, J. Vis..

[22]  David A. Tovar,et al.  Representational dynamics of object vision: the first 1000 ms. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[23]  Bakul Gohel,et al.  MEG Based Functional Connectivity: Application of ICA to Alleviate Signal Leakage , 2017 .

[24]  Andrea Passerini,et al.  Group-level spatio-temporal pattern recovery in MEG decoding using multi-task joint feature learning , 2017, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[25]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Early Visual Responses Predict Conscious Face Perception within and between Subjects during Binocular Rivalry , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  Radoslaw Martin Cichy,et al.  Resolving human object recognition in space and time , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Max C. Keuken,et al.  TMS over M1 Reveals Expression and Selective Suppression of Conflicting Action Impulses , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Yong Jeong,et al.  Modality-specific spectral dynamics in response to visual and tactile sequential shape information processing tasks: An MEG study using multivariate pattern classification analysis , 2016, Brain Research.

[29]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  What do differences between multi-voxel and univariate analysis mean? How subject-, voxel-, and trial-level variance impact fMRI analysis , 2014, NeuroImage.

[30]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview , 2013, NeuroImage.