Scalable surrogate deconvolution for identification of partially-observable systems and brain modeling

For many biophysical systems, direct measurement of all state-variables, in – vivo is not-feasible. Thus, a key challenge in biological modeling and signal processing is to reconstruct the activity and structure of interesting biological systems from indirect measurements. These measurements are often generated by approximately linear time-invariant (LTI) dynamical interactions with the hidden system and may therefore be described as a convolution of hidden state-variables with an unknown kernel. In the current work, we present an approach termed surrogate deconvolution, to directly identify such coupled systems (i.e. parameterize models). Surrogate deconvolution reframes certain nonlinear partially-observable identification problems, which are common in neuroscience/biology, as analytical objectives that are compatible with almost any user-chosen optimization procedure. We show that the proposed technique is highly scalable, low in computational complexity, and performs competitively with the current gold-standard in partially-observable system estimation: the joint Kalman Filters (Unscented and Extended). We show the benefits of surrogate deconvolution for model identification when applied to simulations of the Local Field Potential and blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal. Lastly, we demonstrate the empirical stability of Hemodynamic Response Function (HRF) kernel estimates for Mesoscale Individualized NeuroDynamic (MINDy) models of individual human brains. The recovered HRF parameters demonstrate reliable individual variation as well as a stereotyped spatial distribution, on average. These results demonstrate that surrogate deconvolution promises to enhance brain-modeling approaches by simultaneously and rapidly fitting large-scale models of brain networks and the physiological processes which generate neuroscientific measurements (e.g. hemodynamics for BOLD fMRI).

[1]  W. Rall Distinguishing theoretical synaptic potentials computed for different soma-dendritic distributions of synaptic input. , 1967, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[3]  Sheng Chen,et al.  Representations of non-linear systems: the NARMAX model , 1989 .

[4]  A. Hodgkin,et al.  A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve , 1952, The Journal of physiology.

[5]  Rafael Yuste,et al.  Fast nonnegative deconvolution for spike train inference from population calcium imaging. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  An Information-Maximization Approach to Blind Separation and Blind Deconvolution , 1995, Neural Computation.

[7]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  A generative model of whole-brain effective connectivity , 2018, NeuroImage.

[8]  Kumpati S. Narendra,et al.  Identification and control of dynamical systems using neural networks , 1990, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[9]  J J Hopfield,et al.  Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. , 1984, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Michael J. Cole,et al.  Estimation and validation of individualized dynamic brain models with resting state fMRI , 2019, NeuroImage.

[11]  Rudolph van der Merwe,et al.  The square-root unscented Kalman filter for state and parameter-estimation , 2001, 2001 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37221).

[12]  N. Wiener Resume of Fundamental Mathematical Notions , 1949 .

[13]  Stefano Panzeri,et al.  Modelling and analysis of local field potentials for studying the function of cortical circuits , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[14]  T. Başar,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2001 .

[15]  R JonesDonald,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998 .

[16]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  A blind sparse deconvolution method for neural spike identification , 2011, NIPS.

[17]  Timothy O. Laumann,et al.  Local-Global Parcellation of the Human Cerebral Cortex From Intrinsic Functional Connectivity MRI , 2017, bioRxiv.

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

[19]  Tokunbo Ogunfunmi,et al.  Adaptive Nonlinear System Identification: The Volterra and Wiener Model Approaches , 2007 .

[20]  Jose C. Principe,et al.  Quantifying bursting neuron activity from calcium signals using blind deconvolution , 2013, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[21]  Jeffrey K. Uhlmann,et al.  New extension of the Kalman filter to nonlinear systems , 1997, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[22]  Richard D. Braatz,et al.  On the "Identification and control of dynamical systems using neural networks" , 1997, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[23]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  An Efficient Method for Computing Synaptic Conductances Based on a Kinetic Model of Receptor Binding , 1994, Neural Computation.

[24]  Matthias Bethge,et al.  Benchmarking Spike Rate Inference in Population Calcium Imaging , 2016, Neuron.

[25]  A. Lammertsma,et al.  Simplified Reference Tissue Model for PET Receptor Studies , 1996, NeuroImage.

[26]  M. Xiong,et al.  Extended Kalman Filter for Estimation of Parameters in Nonlinear State-Space Models of Biochemical Networks , 2008, PloS one.

[27]  Brendon O. Watson,et al.  Spike inference from calcium imaging using sequential Monte Carlo methods. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[28]  R. Buckner,et al.  Human Brain Mapping 6:373–377(1998) � Event-Related fMRI and the Hemodynamic Response , 2022 .

[29]  William H. Richardson,et al.  Bayesian-Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration , 1972 .

[30]  R. Turner,et al.  Event-Related fMRI: Characterizing Differential Responses , 1998, NeuroImage.

[31]  Yuichi Kimura,et al.  PET kinetic analysis—compartmental model , 2006, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[32]  José M. Bioucas-Dias,et al.  An Augmented Lagrangian Approach to the Constrained Optimization Formulation of Imaging Inverse Problems , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[33]  D. A. Fish,et al.  Blind deconvolution by means of the Richardson-Lucy algorithm. , 1995 .

[34]  Matthew F. Singh,et al.  Individualized Dynamic Brain Models: Estimation and Validation with Resting-State fMRI , 2019 .

[35]  R. E. Kalman,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2002 .

[36]  Timothy O. Laumann,et al.  Data Quality Influences Observed Links Between Functional Connectivity and Behavior , 2017, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  L. Lucy An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions , 1974 .

[38]  Norbert Wiener,et al.  Extrapolation, Interpolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series , 1964 .

[39]  Timothy Dozat,et al.  Incorporating Nesterov Momentum into Adam , 2016 .

[40]  José M. F. Moura,et al.  Distributing the Kalman Filter for Large-Scale Systems , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.