Reliability of Dynamic Causal Modeling using the Statistical Parametric Mapping Toolbox

Dynamic causal modeling (DCM) is a recently developed approach for effective connectivity measurement in the brain. It has attracted considerable attention in recent years and quite widespread used to investigate brain connectivity in response to different tasks as well as auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. This method uses complex algorithms, and currently the only implementation available is the Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM8) toolbox with functionality for use on EEG and fMRI. The objective of the current work is to test the robustness of the toolbox when applied to EEG, by comparing results obtained from various versions of the software and operating systems when using identical datasets. Contrary to expectations, it was found that estimated connectivities were not consistent between different operating systems, the version of SPM8, or the version of MATLAB being used. The exact cause of this problem is not clear, but may relate to the high number of parameters in the model. Caution is thus recommended when interpreting the results of DCM estimated with the SPM8 software.

[1]  Vangelis Sakkalis,et al.  Review of advanced techniques for the estimation of brain connectivity measured with EEG/MEG , 2011, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[2]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Repetition suppression and plasticity in the human brain , 2009, NeuroImage.

[3]  Karl J. Friston.  Functional and Effective Connectivity: A Review , 2011, Brain Connect..

[4]  Ben H. Jansen,et al.  Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns , 1995, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Modelling event-related responses in the brain , 2005, NeuroImage.

[6]  Luiz A. Baccalá,et al.  Partial directed coherence: a new concept in neural structure determination , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[8]  F. Varela,et al.  Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[9]  Heinrich Lanfermann,et al.  Understanding why patients with schizophrenia do not perceive the hollow-mask illusion using dynamic causal modelling , 2009, NeuroImage.

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

[11]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling of evoked potentials: A reproducibility study , 2007, NeuroImage.

[12]  Danai Dima,et al.  Impaired top-down processes in schizophrenia: A DCM study of ERPs , 2010, NeuroImage.

[13]  C. Granger.  Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods , 1969 .

[14]  Mahdi Jalili,et al.  EEG-based functional networks in schizophrenia , 2011, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[15]  Daniele Marinazzo,et al.  Radial basis function approach to nonlinear Granger causality of time series. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  W. Singer,et al.  Testing non-linearity and directedness of interactions between neural groups in the macaque inferotemporal cortex , 1999, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[17]  M. Kaminski,et al.  Determination of information flow direction among brain structures by a modified directed transfer function (dDTF) method , 2003, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[18]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modeling of evoked responses in EEG and MEG , 2006, NeuroImage.

[19]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  PW01-148 - Effective Connectivity Within The Network Of Fearful Facial Affect Recognition In Patients With Bipolar Disorder Compared To Healthy Controls , 2010, European Psychiatry.

[20]  Koichi Sameshima,et al.  Using partial directed coherence to describe neuronal ensemble interactions , 1999, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[21]  Régine Le Bouquin-Jeannès,et al.  Linear and nonlinear causality between signals: methods, examples and neurophysiological applications , 2006, Biological Cybernetics.

[22]  Michael Breakspear,et al.  Dynamic and stochastic models of neuroimaging data: A comment on Lohmann et al. , 2013, NeuroImage.

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A neural mass model for MEG/EEG: coupling and neuronal dynamics , 2003, NeuroImage.

[24]  Chin‐Chang Huang,et al.  Brain connectivity of patients with Alzheimer's disease by coherence and cross mutual information of electroencephalograms during photic stimulation. , 2013, Medical engineering & physics.

[25]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Model selection and gobbledygook: Response to Lohmann et al. , 2013, NeuroImage.

[26]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A dynamic causal model study of neuronal population dynamics , 2010, NeuroImage.

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

[28]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Preserved Feedforward But Impaired Top-Down Processes in the Vegetative State , 2011, Science.

[29]  Gabriele Lohmann,et al.  Response to commentaries on our paper: Critical comments on dynamic causal modelling , 2013, NeuroImage.

[30]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses: The role of intrinsic connections , 2007, NeuroImage.

[31]  Rodrigo Quian Quiroga,et al.  Nonlinear multivariate analysis of neurophysiological signals , 2005, Progress in Neurobiology.

[32]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Dynamic causal modelling of precision and synaptic gain in visual perception — an EEG study , 2012, NeuroImage.