nips nips2006 nips2006-113 nips2006-113-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Enrico Simonotto, Heather Whalley, Stephen Lawrie, Lawrence Murray, David Mcgonigle, Amos J. Storkey
Abstract: Structural equation models can be seen as an extension of Gaussian belief networks to cyclic graphs, and we show they can be understood generatively as the model for the joint distribution of long term average equilibrium activity of Gaussian dynamic belief networks. Most use of structural equation models in fMRI involves postulating a particular structure and comparing learnt parameters across different groups. In this paper it is argued that there are situations where priors about structure are not firm or exhaustive, and given sufficient data, it is worth investigating learning network structure as part of the approach to connectivity analysis. First we demonstrate structure learning on a toy problem. We then show that for particular fMRI data the simple models usually assumed are not supported. We show that is is possible to learn sensible structural equation models that can provide modelling benefits, but that are not necessarily going to be the same as a true causal model, and suggest the combination of prior models and learning or the use of temporal information from dynamic models may provide more benefits than learning structural equations alone. 1
[1] K. A. Bollen. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
[2] C. Buchel, J.T. Coull, and K.J. Friston. The preedictive value of changes in effective connectivity for human learning. Science, 283:1528–1541, 1999.
[3] E. Bullmore, B. Howitz, G. Honey, M. Brammer, S. Williams, and T. Sharma. How good is good enough in path analysis of fMRI data? Neuroimage, 11:289–301, 2000.
[4] D. Dash. Restructing dynamic causal systems in equilibrium. In Proc. Uncertainty in AI 2005, 2005.
[5] K.J. Friston and C. Buchel. Attentional modulation of effective connectivity from V2 to V5/MT in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciecnes, 97:7591–7596, 2000.
[6] K.J. Friston, L. Harrison, and W.D. Penny. Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage, 19:1273–1302, 2003.
[7] T. Haavelmo. The statistical implications of a system of simultaneous equations. Econometrica, 11:1–12, 1943.
[8] D. McGonigle, A. Howseman, B. Athwal, K.J. Friston, R. Frackowiak, and A. Holmes. Variability in fmri: An examination of intersession differences. Neuroimage, 11:708–734, 2000.
[9] A. R. McIntosh and F. Gozales-Lima. Structural equation modelling and its application to network analysis in functional brain imaging. Human Brain Mapping, 2:2–22, 1994.
[10] C. Glymour P. Spirtes and R. Scheines. Causation, Prediction and Search. MIT Press, 2 edition, 2001.
[11] J. Pearl. Causality. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[12] W.D. Penny, K.E. Stephan, A. Mechelli, and K.J. Friston. Comparing dynamic causal models. Neuroimage, 22:1157–1172, 2004.
[13] T. Richardson. A discovery algorithm for directed cyclic graphs. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1996.
[14] J. Rowe, K.E. Stephan, K. Friston, R. Frackowiak, A. Lees, and R. Passingham. Attention to action in Parkinsons disease. Brain, 125:276–289, 2002.
[15] R. Schlosser, T. Gesierich, B. Kauffman, G. Vucurevic, S. Hunsche, J. Gawehn, and P. Stoeter. Altered effective connectivity during working memory performance in schizophrenia: a study with fMRI and structural equation modeling. Neuroimage, 19:751–763, 2003.
[16] G. Schwarz. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6:461–464, 1978.
[17] S.M.Smith, C.F. Beckmann, N. Ramnani, M.W. Woolrich, P.R. Bannister, M. Jenkinson, P.M. Matthews, and D. McGonigle. Variability in fMRI: A re-examination of intersession differences. Human Brain Mapping, 24:248–257, 2005.
[18] P.A. Valdes Sosa, J.M. Sanchez-Bornot, A. Lage-Castellanos, M. Vega-Hernandez, J. Bosch Bayard, L. Melie-Garcia, and E. Canales-Rodriguez. Estimating brain functional connectiivty with sparse multivariate autoregression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society onf London B Biological Sciences, 360:969–981, 2005.
[19] H.C. Whalley, E. Simonotto, I. Marshall, D.G.C Owens, N.H. Goddard, E.C. Johnstone, and S.M. Lawrie. Functional disconnectivity in subjects at high genetic risk of schizophrenia. Brain, 128:2097–2108, 2005.
[20] S. Wright. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20:557–585, 1921.
[21] X. Zheng and J. C. Rajapakse. Learning functional structure from fMR images. Neuroimage, 31:1601– 1613, 2006.