Untangling the relatedness among correlations, Part II: Inter-subject correlation group analysis through linear mixed-effects modeling

ABSTRACT It has been argued that naturalistic conditions in FMRI studies provide a useful paradigm for investigating perception and cognition through a synchronization measure, inter‐subject correlation (ISC). However, one analytical stumbling block has been the fact that the ISC values associated with each single subject are not independent, and our previous paper (Chen et al., 2016) used simulations and analyses of real data to show that the methodologies adopted in the literature do not have the proper control for false positives. In the same paper, we proposed nonparametric subject‐wise bootstrapping and permutation testing techniques for one and two groups, respectively, which account for the correlation structure, and these greatly outperformed the prior methods in controlling the false positive rate (FPR); that is, subject‐wise bootstrapping (SWB) worked relatively well for both cases with one and two groups, and subject‐wise permutation (SWP) testing was virtually ideal for group comparisons. Here we seek to explicate and adopt a parametric approach through linear mixed‐effects (LME) modeling for studying the ISC values, building on the previous correlation framework, with the benefit that the LME platform offers wider adaptability, more powerful interpretations, and quality control checking capability than nonparametric methods. We describe both theoretical and practical issues involved in the modeling and the manner in which LME with crossed random effects (CRE) modeling is applied. A data‐doubling step further allows us to conveniently track the subject index, and achieve easy implementations. We pit the LME approach against the best nonparametric methods, and find that the LME framework achieves proper control for false positives. The new LME methodologies are shown to be both efficient and robust, and they will be publicly available in AFNI (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov). HIGHLIGHTSISC shows similarities of response to naturalistic conditions.An LME model with crossed random effects can be formulated for ISC group analysis.LME accurately accounts for the correlation structure embedded in the ISC data.LME demonstrates proper control for false positives and good power attainment.LME offers wide modeling flexibility, powerful interpretations, and quality control.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A general statistical analysis for fMRI data , 2000, NeuroImage.

[3]  Eugene Demidenko,et al.  Mixed Models: Theory and Applications with R , 2013 .

[4]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[5]  Mert R. Sabuncu,et al.  Statistical analysis of longitudinal neuroimage data with Linear Mixed Effects models , 2013, NeuroImage.

[6]  Gang Chen,et al.  Untangling the relatedness among correlations, part I: Nonparametric approaches to inter-subject correlation analysis at the group level , 2016, NeuroImage.

[7]  Michael S. Beauchamp,et al.  FMRI group analysis combining effect estimates and their variances , 2012, NeuroImage.

[8]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data , 2001 .

[9]  Hang Joon Jo,et al.  Mapping sources of correlation in resting state FMRI, with artifact detection and removal , 2010, NeuroImage.

[10]  D. Heeger,et al.  A Hierarchy of Temporal Receptive Windows in Human Cortex , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[12]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[13]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[14]  Brenna Argall,et al.  SUMA: an interface for surface-based intra- and inter-subject analysis with AFNI , 2004, 2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821).

[15]  Katie L. McMahon,et al.  A multivariate distance-based analytic framework for connectome-wide association studies , 2014, NeuroImage.

[16]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference , 2004, NeuroImage.

[17]  A. Dale,et al.  Whole Brain Segmentation Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain , 2002, Neuron.

[18]  Jukka-Pekka Kauppi,et al.  A versatile software package for inter-subject correlation based analyses of fMRI , 2014 .

[19]  John C. Gower,et al.  Analysis of distance for structured multivariate data and extensions to multivariate analysis of variance , 1999 .

[20]  R. Malach,et al.  Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision , 2004, Science.

[21]  J. Brioni,et al.  and Alzheimer's disease , 2010 .

[22]  Jennifer C. Britton,et al.  Linear mixed-effects modeling approach to FMRI group analysis , 2013, NeuroImage.