nips nips2013 nips2013-306 nips2013-306-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Chris Hinrichs, Vamsi Ithapu, Qinyuan Sun, Sterling C. Johnson, Vikas Singh
Abstract: Multiple hypothesis testing is a significant problem in nearly all neuroimaging studies. In order to correct for this phenomena, we require a reliable estimate of the Family-Wise Error Rate (FWER). The well known Bonferroni correction method, while simple to implement, is quite conservative, and can substantially under-power a study because it ignores dependencies between test statistics. Permutation testing, on the other hand, is an exact, non-parametric method of estimating the FWER for a given α-threshold, but for acceptably low thresholds the computational burden can be prohibitive. In this paper, we show that permutation testing in fact amounts to populating the columns of a very large matrix P. By analyzing the spectrum of this matrix, under certain conditions, we see that P has a low-rank plus a low-variance residual decomposition which makes it suitable for highly sub–sampled — on the order of 0.5% — matrix completion methods. Based on this observation, we propose a novel permutation testing methodology which offers a large speedup, without sacrificing the fidelity of the estimated FWER. Our evaluations on four different neuroimaging datasets show that a computational speedup factor of roughly 50× can be achieved while recovering the FWER distribution up to very high accuracy. Further, we show that the estimated α-threshold is also recovered faithfully, and is stable. 1
[1] J. Ashburner and K. J. Friston. Voxel-based morphometry–the methods. NeuroImage, 11(6):805–821, 2000.
[2] J. Ashburner and K. J. Friston. Why voxel-based morphometry should be used. NeuroImage, 14(6):1238– 1243, 2001.
[3] P. H. Westfall and S. S. Young. Resampling-based multiple testing: examples and methods for p-value adjustment, volume 279. Wiley-Interscience, 1993.
[4] J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman. Multiple significance tests: the bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310(6973):170, 1995.
[5] J. Li and L. Ji. Adjusting multiple testing in multilocus analyses using the eigenvalues of a correlation matrix. Heredity, 95(3):221–227, 2005.
[6] J. Storey and R. Tibshirani. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16):9440–9445, 2003.
[7] H. Finner and V. Gontscharuk. Controlling the familywise error rate with plug-in estimator for the proportion of true null hypotheses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 71(5):1031–1048, 2009.
[8] J. T. Leek and J. D. Storey. A general framework for multiple testing dependence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(48):18718–18723, 2008.
[9] S. Clarke and P. Hall. Robustness of multiple testing procedures against dependence. The Annals of Statistics, pages 332–358, 2009.
[10] S. Garc´a, A. Fern´ ndez, J. Luengo, and F. Herrera. Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparı a isons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: Experimental analysis of power. Information Sciences, 180(10):2044–2064, 2010.
[11] Y. Ge, S. Dudoit, and T. P. Speed. Resampling-based multiple testing for microarray data analysis. Test, 12(1):1–77, 2003.
[12] T. Nichols and S. Hayasaka. Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 12:419–446, 2003.
[13] K. D. Singh, G. R. Barnes, and A. Hillebrand. Group imaging of task-related changes in cortical synchronisation using nonparametric permutation testing. NeuroImage, 19(4):1589–1601, 2003.
[14] D. Pantazis, T. E. Nichols, S. Baillet, and R. M. Leahy. A comparison of random field theory and permutation methods for the statistical analysis of meg data. NeuroImage, 25(2):383–394, 2005.
[15] B. Gaonkar and C. Davatzikos. Analytic estimation of statistical significance maps for support vector machine based multi-variate image analysis and classification. NeuroImage, 78:270–283, 2013.
[16] J. M. Cheverud. A simple correction for multiple comparisons in interval mapping genome scans. Heredity, 87(1):52–58, 2001.
[17] J. He, L. Balzano, and A. Szlam. Incremental gradient on the grassmannian for online foreground and background separation in subsampled video. In CVPR, 2012.
[18] M. Dwass. Modified randomization tests for nonparametric hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28(1):181–187, 1957.
[19] E. J. Cand` s and T. Tao. The power of convex relaxation: Near-optimal matrix completion. IEEE Transe actions on Information Theory, 56(5):2053–2080, 2010.
[20] M. Fazel, H. Hindi, and S. Boyd. Rank minimization and applications in system theory. In American Control Conference, volume 4, 2004.
[21] B. Recht, M. Fazel, and P. A. Parrilo. Guaranteed minimum-rank solutions of linear matrix equations via nuclear norm minimization. Arxiv Preprint, 2007. arxiv:0706.4138.
[22] L. Balzano, R. Nowak, and B. Recht. Online identification and tracking of subspaces from highly incomplete information. Arxiv Preprint, 2007. arxiv:1006.4046.
[23] V. Chandrasekaran, S. Sanghavi, P. A. Parrilo, and Willsky A. S. Rank-sparsity incoherence for matrix decomposition. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 21(2):572–596, 2011.
[24] F. Benaych-Georges and R. R. Nadakuditi. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of finite, low rank perturbations of large random matrices. Advances in Mathematics, 227(1):494–521, 2011. 9