Challenges for Bayesian Model Selection of Dynamic Causal Models

Achieving a mechanistic explanation of brain function requires understanding causal relationships among regions. A relatively new technique to assess effective connectivity in fMRI data is Dynamic Causal Modeling (DCM). As DCM is more frequently used, it becomes increasingly important to further validate the technique and understand its limitations. With DCM, Bayesian Model Selection (BMS) is used to select the most likely causal model. We conducted simulations to test the degree to which BMS is robust to two types of challenges when applied to DCMs, those inherent to data (Category 1) and those inherent to model space (Category 2). Category 1 challenges tested properties of the data (low signal-to-noise, different response magnitudes and shapes across regions) that could either blur the distinction between models or potentially bias model selection. These challenges are impossible or difficult to measure and control in real data, so investigating their effect upon BMS through simulation is critical. Category 2 challenges tested properties of model space that create subsets of confusable models. Our results suggest that given data that conform to the prior assumptions of DCM, BMS is robust to challenges from Category 1. However, in the face of Category 2 challenges (when a more homogenous model space was tested) the false positive rate rose above an acceptable level. We show that such errors are neither trivial nor easily avoided with existing approaches. However, we argue that it is possible to detect Category 2 challenges, and avoid inappropriate interpretations by conducting simulations prior to applying DCM. Acronyms DCM Dynamic Causal Modeling BMS Bayesian Model Selection fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging BOLD blood oxygen level dependent FMC Family Model Comparison HRF hemodynamic response function ROI region of interest SNR signal to noise ratio R1 region 1 R2 region 2 U1 input 1

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

[2]  A. Ishai,et al.  Effective connectivity within the distributed cortical network for face perception. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[3]  Olivier David,et al.  fMRI connectivity, meaning and empiricism Comments on: Roebroeck et al. The identification of interacting networks in the brain using fMRI: Model selection, causality and deconvolution , 2011, NeuroImage.

[4]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[5]  Michael Erb,et al.  Cerebral pathways in processing of affective prosody: A dynamic causal modeling study , 2006, NeuroImage.

[6]  I. J. Myung,et al.  When a good fit can be bad , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[8]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling , 2010, NeuroImage.

[9]  Philip K. McGuire,et al.  Cingulate activity and fronto-temporal connectivity in people with prodromal signs of psychosis , 2010, NeuroImage.

[10]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Network discovery with DCM , 2011, NeuroImage.

[11]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Post-hoc selection of dynamic causal models , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[12]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Bayesian Estimation of Dynamical Systems: An Application to fMRI , 2002, NeuroImage.

[13]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM , 2007, NeuroImage.

[14]  Clark Glymour,et al.  Multi-subject search correctly identifies causal connections and most causal directions in the DCM models of the Smith et al. simulation study , 2011, NeuroImage.

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

[16]  Kerstin Preuschoff,et al.  Optimizing Experimental Design for Comparing Models of Brain Function , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  Gabriele Lohmann,et al.  Critical comments on dynamic causal modelling , 2012, NeuroImage.

[18]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Bayesian model selection for group studies , 2009, NeuroImage.

[19]  Michael Breakspear,et al.  Networks, noise and models: Reconceptualizing the brain as a complex, distributed system , 2011, NeuroImage.

[20]  William D. Penny,et al.  Comparing Dynamic Causal Models using AIC, BIC and Free Energy , 2012, NeuroImage.

[21]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Tractography-based priors for dynamic causal models , 2009, NeuroImage.

[22]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  The danger of systematic bias in group-level FMRI-lag-based causality estimation , 2012, NeuroImage.

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Effective connectivity: Influence, causality and biophysical modeling , 2011, NeuroImage.

[24]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Variational free energy and the Laplace approximation , 2007, NeuroImage.

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

[26]  Paul M. Matthews,et al.  Regional differences in neurovascular coupling in rat brain as determined by fMRI and electrophysiology , 2010, NeuroImage.

[27]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Post hoc Bayesian model selection , 2011, NeuroImage.

[28]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal , 2001, Nature.

[29]  Mark D'Esposito,et al.  The continuing challenge of understanding and modeling hemodynamic variation in fMRI , 2012, NeuroImage.

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

[31]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Comparing Families of Dynamic Causal Models , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[33]  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.

[34]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Network modelling methods for FMRI , 2011, NeuroImage.

[35]  Olivier David,et al.  Dynamic Causal Modelling and physiological confounds: A functional MRI study of vagus nerve stimulation , 2010, NeuroImage.

[36]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Nonlinear Responses in fMRI: The Balloon Model, Volterra Kernels, and Other Hemodynamics , 2000, NeuroImage.

[37]  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.

[38]  Richard J. Davidson,et al.  Dynamic Causal Modeling applied to fMRI data shows high reliability , 2010, NeuroImage.

[39]  R. Poldrack Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  Klaas E. Stephan,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling: A critical review of the biophysical and statistical foundations , 2011, NeuroImage.

[41]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal models of neural system dynamics: current state and future extensions , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.