Estimating efficiency a priori: a comparison of blocked and randomized designs

This technical note deals with a priori estimation of efficiency of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) designs. The efficiency of an estimator is a measure of how reliable it is and depends on error variance (the variance not modeled by explanatory variables in the design matrix) and the design variance (a function of the explanatory variables and the contrast tested). Changes in the experimental design can induce changes in the variance of estimated responses. This translates into changes in the standard error of the response estimate or equivalently into changes in efficiency. One consequence is that statistics, testing for the same activation in different contexts (i.e., experimental designs), can change substantially even if the activation and error variance are exactly the same. We demonstrate this effect using an event-related fMRI study of single word reading during blocked and randomized trial presentations. Furthermore, we show that the error variance can change with the experimental design. This highlights a problem with a priori comparison of efficiency for two or more experimental designs, which usually assumes identical error variance.

[1]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Classical and Bayesian Inference in Neuroimaging: Applications , 2002, NeuroImage.

[2]  Freda Kemp,et al.  The Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures , 2003 .

[3]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The Critical Relationship between the Timing of Stimulus Presentation and Data Acquisition in Blocked Designs with fMRI , 1999, NeuroImage.

[4]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Analysis of fMRI Time-Series Revisited—Again , 1995, NeuroImage.

[5]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Spatial registration and normalization of images , 1995 .

[6]  R. Buxton,et al.  Detection Power, Estimation Efficiency, and Predictability in Event-Related fMRI , 2001, NeuroImage.

[7]  Maliha S. Nash,et al.  Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures , 2001, Technometrics.

[8]  O Josephs,et al.  Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging: modelling, inference and optimization. , 1999, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[9]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Event-related fMRI , 1997 .

[10]  A M Dale,et al.  Optimal experimental design for event‐related fMRI , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[11]  M. Torrens Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain—3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging, J. Talairach, P. Tournoux. Georg Thieme Verlag, New York (1988), 122 pp., 130 figs. DM 268 , 1990 .

[12]  P. Fox,et al.  Computational approaches to network analysis in functional brain imaging , 1994 .

[13]  R. Cox,et al.  Event‐related fMRI contrast when using constant interstimulus interval: Theory and experiment , 2000, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Stochastic Designs in Event-Related fMRI , 1999, NeuroImage.

[15]  A. -L. Paradis,et al.  Do high temporal frequencies of the event-related fMRI response have a more specific spatial localisation ? , 1998, NeuroImage.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach , 1994 .

[17]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[18]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The temporal dynamics of reading: a PET study , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

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