Morphology-based hypothesis testing in discrete random fields: A non-parametric method to address the multiple-comparison problem in neuroimaging

Article history: Received 18 October 2010 Revised 25 March 2011 Accepted 29 March 2011 Available online 1 October 2011 Anewmethod for detecting activations in randomfields,whichmay beuseful for addressing the issue ofmultiple comparisons in neuroimaging, is presented. This method is based on some constructs of mathematical morphology – specifically, morphological erosions and dilations – that enable the detection of active regions in random fields possessing moderate activation levels and relatively large spatial extension, which may not be detected by the standardmethods that control the family-wise error rate. Themethod presented here permits an appropriate control of the false positive errors, without having to adjust any threshold values, other than the significance level. The method is easily adapted to permutation-based procedures (with the usual restrictions), and therefore does not require strong assumptions about the distribution and spatio-temporal correlation structure of thedata. Someexamples of applications to synthetic data, including realistic fMRI simulations, aswell as to real fMRI and electroencephalographic data arepresented, illustrating the powerof thepresented technique. Comparisonswith othermethods that combine voxel intensity and cluster size, aswell as some extensions of the method presented here based on their basic ideas are presented as well.

[1]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Analysis of functional MRI time‐series , 1994, Human Brain Mapping.

[2]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Empirical Analyses of BOLD fMRI Statistics , 1997, NeuroImage.

[3]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  False Discovery Rates for Spatial Signals , 2007 .

[4]  Jean Serra,et al.  Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology , 1983 .

[5]  Karine Sergerie,et al.  The role of the amygdala in emotional processing: A quantitative meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies , 2008, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[6]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  False discovery rate revisited: FDR and topological inference using Gaussian random fields , 2009, NeuroImage.

[7]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  R. Weisskoff,et al.  Effect of temporal autocorrelation due to physiological noise and stimulus paradigm on voxel‐level false‐positive rates in fMRI , 1998, Human brain mapping.

[9]  José L. Marroquín,et al.  Exploratory EEG data analysis for psychophysiological experiments , 2004, NeuroImage.

[10]  Pierre Soille,et al.  Morphological Image Analysis , 1999 .

[11]  Hernando Ombao,et al.  Statistical tests for fMRI based on experimental randomization , 2003, NeuroImage.

[12]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  Learning to Decode Cognitive States from Brain Images , 2004, Machine Learning.

[13]  F. Pesarin Multivariate Permutation Tests : With Applications in Biostatistics , 2001 .

[14]  Audris Mockus,et al.  The Challenge of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 1999 .

[15]  J D Watson,et al.  Nonparametric Analysis of Statistic Images from Functional Mapping Experiments , 1996, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[16]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review , 2003, Statistical methods in medical research.

[17]  John Suckling,et al.  Global, voxel, and cluster tests, by theory and permutation, for a difference between two groups of structural MR images of the brain , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  A comparison of random field theory and permutation methods for the statistical analysis of MEG data , 2005, NeuroImage.

[19]  H. Abdi The Bonferonni and Šidák Corrections for Multiple Comparisons , 2006 .

[20]  Tom W. Keller,et al.  Reading Span and the Time-course of Cortical Activation in Sentence-Picture Verification , 2001 .

[21]  Dave R. M. Langers,et al.  Enhanced signal detection in neuroimaging by means of regional control of the global false discovery rate , 2007, NeuroImage.

[22]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  An MRI-Based Probabilistic Atlas of Neuroanatomy , 1994 .

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent , 1994, Human brain mapping.

[24]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Statistical Analysis for CBF Activation Studies in Human Brain , 1992, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[25]  Hui Zhang,et al.  Cluster mass inference via random field theory , 2009, NeuroImage.

[26]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[27]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Threshold-free cluster enhancement: Addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference , 2009, NeuroImage.

[28]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Combining Spatial Extent and Peak Intensity to Test for Activations in Functional Imaging , 1997, NeuroImage.

[29]  P. Jaccard THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1 , 1912 .

[30]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Thresholding of Statistical Maps in Functional Neuroimaging Using the False Discovery Rate , 2002, NeuroImage.

[31]  C. D. Kemp,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[32]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Combining voxel intensity and cluster extent with permutation test framework , 2004, NeuroImage.

[33]  Nava Rubin,et al.  Cluster-based analysis of FMRI data , 2006, NeuroImage.

[34]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Topological FDR for neuroimaging , 2010, NeuroImage.

[35]  E. Lehmann,et al.  Testing Statistical Hypothesis. , 1960 .