Is First-Order Vector Autoregressive Model Optimal for fMRI Data?

We consider the problem of selecting the optimal orders of vector autoregressive (VAR) models for fMRI data. Many previous studies used model order of one and ignored that it may vary considerably across data sets depending on different data dimensions, subjects, tasks, and experimental designs. In addition, the classical information criteria (IC) used (e.g., the Akaike IC (AIC)) are biased and inappropriate for the high-dimensional fMRI data typically with a small sample size. We examine the mixed results on the optimal VAR orders for fMRI, especially the validity of the order-one hypothesis, by a comprehensive evaluation using different model selection criteria over three typical data types—a resting state, an event-related design, and a block design data set—with varying time series dimensions obtained from distinct functional brain networks. We use a more balanced criterion, Kullback’s IC (KIC) based on Kullback’s symmetric divergence combining two directed divergences. We also consider the bias-corrected versions (AICc and KICc) to improve VAR model selection in small samples. Simulation results show better small-sample selection performance of the proposed criteria over the classical ones. Both bias-corrected ICs provide more accurate and consistent model order choices than their biased counterparts, which suffer from overfitting, with KICc performing the best. Results on real data show that orders greater than one were selected by all criteria across all data sets for the small to moderate dimensions, particularly from small, specific networks such as the resting-state default mode network and the task-related motor networks, whereas low orders close to one but not necessarily one were chosen for the large dimensions of full-brain networks.

[1]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  Regression and time series model selection in small samples , 1989 .

[2]  Chaogan Yan,et al.  DPARSF: A MATLAB Toolbox for “Pipeline” Data Analysis of Resting-State fMRI , 2010, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[3]  B. Biswal,et al.  The resting brain: unconstrained yet reliable. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[4]  Hernando Ombao,et al.  Investigating brain connectivity using mixed effects vector autoregressive models , 2012, NeuroImage.

[5]  Shun-ichi Amari,et al.  Identification of Directed Influence: Granger Causality, Kullback-Leibler Divergence, and Complexity , 2012, Neural Computation.

[6]  Sungho Tak,et al.  A Data-Driven Sparse GLM for fMRI Analysis Using Sparse Dictionary Learning With MDL Criterion , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  S. Rombouts,et al.  Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience Systems Neuroscience , 2022 .

[8]  Chee-Ming Ting,et al.  Estimation of high-dimensional brain connectivity from FMRI data using factor modeling , 2014, 2014 IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing (SSP).

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

[10]  Lester Melie-García,et al.  Estimating brain functional connectivity with sparse multivariate autoregression , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Abd-Krim Seghouane,et al.  Vector Autoregressive Model-Order Selection From Finite Samples Using Kullback's Symmetric Divergence , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers.

[12]  Chee-Ming Ting,et al.  Estimating Effective Connectivity from fMRI Data Using Factor-based Subspace Autoregressive Models , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[13]  R Cameron Craddock,et al.  A whole brain fMRI atlas generated via spatially constrained spectral clustering , 2012, Human brain mapping.

[14]  N. Tzourio-Mazoyer,et al.  Automated Anatomical Labeling of Activations in SPM Using a Macroscopic Anatomical Parcellation of the MNI MRI Single-Subject Brain , 2002, NeuroImage.

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

[16]  Abd-Krim Seghouane,et al.  A single SVD sparse dictionary learning algorithm for FMRI data analysis , 2014, 2014 IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing (SSP).

[17]  R. Shibata Statistical aspects of model selection , 1989 .

[18]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  A CORRECTED AKAIKE INFORMATION CRITERION FOR VECTOR AUTOREGRESSIVE MODEL SELECTION , 1993 .

[19]  Xiaoping Hu,et al.  Multivariate Granger causality analysis of fMRI data , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[20]  J. Cavanaugh Criteria for Linear Model Selection Based on Kullback's Symmetric Divergence , 2004 .

[21]  Pedro A. Valdes-Sosa,et al.  Spatio-temporal autoregressive models defined over brain manifolds , 2007, Neuroinformatics.

[22]  Carlos E. Thomaz,et al.  Analyzing the connectivity between regions of interest: An approach based on cluster Granger causality for fMRI data analysis , 2010, NeuroImage.

[23]  Steven C. Cramer,et al.  Hierarchical vector auto-regressive models and their applications to multi-subject effective connectivity , 2013, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[24]  Abd-Krim Seghouane,et al.  A small sample model selection criterion based on Kullback's symmetric divergence , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[25]  Egill Rostrup,et al.  Motion or activity: their role in intra- and inter-subject variation in fMRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[26]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Multivariate Autoregressive Modelling of fMRI time series , 2003 .

[27]  Yufeng Zang,et al.  DPARSF: A MATLAB Toolbox for “Pipeline” Data Analysis of Resting-State fMRI , 2010 .

[28]  J. Cavanaugh A large-sample model selection criterion based on Kullback's symmetric divergence , 1999 .

[29]  Panayiota Poirazi,et al.  Computational modeling of the effects of amyloid-beta on release probability at hippocampal synapses , 2013, Front. Comput. Neurosci..