Content deleted Content added
Peterzlondon (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Peterzlondon (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1:
{{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) is a methodology and software framework for specifying models of neural dynamics, estimating their parameters and comparing their evidence <ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Friston|first=K.J.|last2=Harrison|first2=L.|last3=Penny|first3=W.|date=2003-08|title=Dynamic causal modelling|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00202-7|journal=NeuroImage|volume=19|issue=4|pages=1273–1302|doi=10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. It enables hypotheses to be tested about the interaction of neural populations (effective connectivity) using functional neuroimaging data e.g., [[functional magnetic resonance imaging]] (fMRI), [[magnetoencephalography]] (MEG), [[electroencephalography]] (EEG) or intracranial Local Field Potentials (LFP).
== Procedure ==
Line 19:
Functional neuroimaging experiments are typically task-based or [[Resting state fMRI|resting state]]. In task-based experiments, brain responses are evoked by known deterministic inputs (experimentally controlled stimuli) that embody designed changes in sensory stimulation or cognitive set. These experimental or exogenous variables can change neural activity in one of two ways. First, they can elicit responses through direct influences on specific brain regions. This would include, for example, [[Evoked potential|sensory evoked responses]] in the early visual cortex. The second class of inputs exerts their effects vicariously, through a modulation of the coupling among nodes, for example, the influence of attention on the processing of sensory information. These two types of input - driving and modulatory - are separately parameterized in DCM. To enable efficient estimation of driving and modulatory effects, a 2x2 [[Factorial experiment|factorial experimental design]] is often used - with one factor modelled as the driving input and the other as the modulatory input <ref name=":0" />.
Resting state experiments have no experimental manipulations within the period of the neuroimaging recording. Instead, endogenous fluctuations in brain connectivity during the scan are of interest, or the differences in connectivity between scans or subjects. The DCM framework includes models and procedures for resting state data, described below
== Model specification ==
Line 25:
==== Functional MRI ====
The neural model in DCM for fMRI uses a simple mathematical device - a [[Taylor series|Taylor approximation]] - which captures the gross causal causal influences between brain regions and their change due to driving and modulatory inputs. This is coupled with a detailed biophysical model of the generation of the BOLD response and the MRI signal, based on the Balloon model of Buxton et al.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Buxton|first=Richard B.|last2=Wong|first2=Eric C.|last3=Frank|first3=Lawrence R.|date=1998-06|title=Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: The balloon model|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910390602|journal=Magnetic Resonance in Medicine|volume=39|issue=6|pages=855–864|doi=10.1002/mrm.1910390602|issn=0740-3194}}</ref> and extended for use in DCM <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Friston|first=K.J.|last2=Mechelli|first2=A.|last3=Turner|first3=R.|last4=Price|first4=C.J.|date=2000-10|title=Nonlinear Responses in fMRI: The Balloon Model, Volterra Kernels, and Other Hemodynamics|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0630|journal=NeuroImage|volume=12|issue=4|pages=466–477|doi=10.1006/nimg.2000.0630|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stephan|first=Klaas Enno|last2=Weiskopf|first2=Nikolaus|last3=Drysdale|first3=Peter M.|last4=Robinson|first4=Peter A.|last5=Friston|first5=Karl J.|date=2007-11|title=Comparing hemodynamic models with DCM|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040|journal=NeuroImage|volume=38|issue=3|pages=387–401|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. The neural model was subsequently extended to include the interaction of excitatory and inhibitory neural populations <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marreiros|first=A.C.|last2=Kiebel|first2=S.J.|last3=Friston|first3=K.J.|date=2008-01|title=Dynamic causal modelling for fMRI: A two-state model|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.019|journal=NeuroImage|volume=39|issue=1|pages=269–278|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.019|issn=1053-8119}}</ref> and non-linear influences of neural populations on the coupling between other populations<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Stephan|first=Klaas Enno|last2=Kasper|first2=Lars|last3=Harrison|first3=Lee M.|last4=Daunizeau|first4=Jean|last5=den Ouden|first5=Hanneke E.M.|last6=Breakspear|first6=Michael|last7=Friston|first7=Karl J.|date=2008-08|title=Nonlinear dynamic causal models for fMRI|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.262|journal=NeuroImage|volume=42|issue=2|pages=649–662|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.262|issn=1053-8119|pmc=PMC2636907|pmid=18565765}}</ref>.
Support for resting state analysis was first introduced in Stochastic DCM<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2011-09-15|title=Generalised filtering and stochastic DCM for fMRI|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911001406|journal=NeuroImage|language=en|volume=58|issue=2|pages=442–457|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.085|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>, which estimates both neural fluctuations and connectivity parameters in the time ___domain using a procedure called [[Generalized filtering|Generalized Filtering]]. A faster and more accurate solution was introduced which operates in the frequency ___domain, called DCM for Cross-Spectral Densities (CSD) <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Friston|first=Karl J.|last2=Kahan|first2=Joshua|last3=Biswal|first3=Bharat|last4=Razi|first4=Adeel|date=2014-07|title=A DCM for resting state fMRI|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.009|journal=NeuroImage|volume=94|pages=396–407|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.009|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Razi|first=Adeel|last2=Kahan|first2=Joshua|last3=Rees|first3=Geraint|last4=Friston|first4=Karl J.|date=2015-02|title=Construct validation of a DCM for resting state fMRI|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.027|journal=NeuroImage|volume=106|pages=1–14|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.027|issn=1053-8119|pmc=PMC4295921|pmid=25463471}}</ref>. Both of these can be applied to large-scale brain networks by using priors based on functional connectivity<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Seghier|first=Mohamed L.|last2=Friston|first2=Karl J.|date=2013-03|title=Network discovery with large DCMs|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.005|journal=NeuroImage|volume=68|pages=181–191|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.005|issn=1053-8119|pmc=PMC3566585|pmid=23246991}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Razi|first=Adeel|last2=Seghier|first2=Mohamed L.|last3=Zhou|first3=Yuan|last4=McColgan|first4=Peter|last5=Zeidman|first5=Peter|last6=Park|first6=Hae-Jeong|last7=Sporns|first7=Olaf|last8=Rees|first8=Geraint|last9=Friston|first9=Karl J.|date=2017-10|title=Large-scale DCMs for resting-state fMRI|url=https://doi.org/10.1162/NETN_a_00015|journal=Network Neuroscience|language=en|volume=1|issue=3|pages=222–241|doi=10.1162/netn_a_00015|issn=2472-1751|pmc=PMC5796644|pmid=29400357}}</ref>. Another recent development is Regression DCM<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Frässle|first=Stefan|last2=Lomakina|first2=Ekaterina I.|last3=Razi|first3=Adeel|last4=Friston|first4=Karl J.|last5=Buhmann|first5=Joachim M.|last6=Stephan|first6=Klaas E.|date=2017-07|title=Regression DCM for fMRI|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.090|journal=NeuroImage|volume=155|pages=406–421|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.090|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. This also operates in the frequency ___domain, but linearizes the model under certain simplifications, such as having a fixed (canonical) haemodynamic response function. The means that the model can be inverted rapidly as a [[General linear model|General Linear Model]] and can be applied to large-scale brain networks.
==== EEG / MEG / LFP ====
EEG and MEG data can support the estimation of more biologically detailed neural models than fMRI, as their higher temporal resolution provide access to richer neural dynamics. The predominant model is DCM for evoked responses (DCM for ERP)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=David|first=Olivier|last2=Friston|first2=Karl J.|date=2003-11|title=A neural mass model for MEG/EEG:|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.07.015|journal=NeuroImage|volume=20|issue=3|pages=1743–1755|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.07.015|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Kiebel|first=Stefan J.|title=Dynamic Causal Modeling for Evoked Responses|date=2009-07-31|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262013086.003.0006|work=Brain Signal Analysis|pages=141–170|publisher=The MIT Press|isbn=9780262013086|last2=Garrido|first2=Marta I.|last3=Friston|first3=Karl J.}}</ref>. It is a biologically plausible neural mass model, building on the work of several earlier authors especially Jansen and Rit <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jansen|first=Ben H.|last2=Rit|first2=Vincent G.|date=1995-09-01|title=Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004220050191|journal=Biological Cybernetics|volume=73|issue=4|pages=357–366|doi=10.1007/s004220050191|issn=0340-1200}}</ref>. It emulates the activity of a cortical area using three neuronal sub-populations, each of which rests on two operators. The first transforms the pre-synaptic firing rate into a Post-Synaptic Potential (PSP), by [[Convolution|convolving]] a synaptic response function (kernel) by the pre-synaptic input. As a result, this is referred to as a [[convolution]] model. The second operator, a [[Sigmoid function|sigmoid]] function, transforms the membrane potential into a firing rate of action potentials. A subsequent extension to this model, DCM for LFP (Local Field Potentials), added the effects of specific ion channels on spike generation <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moran|first=R.J.|last2=Kiebel|first2=S.J.|last3=Stephan|first3=K.E.|last4=Reilly|first4=R.B.|last5=Daunizeau|first5=J.|last6=Friston|first6=K.J.|date=2007-09|title=A neural mass model of spectral responses in electrophysiology|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.032|journal=NeuroImage|volume=37|issue=3|pages=706–720|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.032|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>.
'''A short paragraph on the CMC model please? We can then ask Rosalyn to add a paragraph on conductance based-models.'''
== Model estimation ==
Line 51 ⟶ 49:
# Model the estimated parameters (the full posterior density) from all subjects using a Bayesian General Linear Model at the group level.
# Test hypotheses by comparing the full group-level model to reduced group-level models where certain combinations of connections have been switched off.
== Validation ==
Developments in DCM have been validated using three approaches.
* Face validity establishes whether the parameters of a model can be recovered from simulated data. This has been performed with the development of each new model (E.g. <ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />).
* Construct validity assesses consistency with other analytical methods - for example Structural Equation Modelling <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Penny|first=W.D.|last2=Stephan|first2=K.E.|last3=Mechelli|first3=A.|last4=Friston|first4=K.J.|date=2004-01|title=Modelling functional integration: a comparison of structural equation and dynamic causal models|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.041|journal=NeuroImage|volume=23|pages=S264–S274|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.041|issn=1053-8119}}</ref> and other neurobiological computational models <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lee|first=Lucy|last2=Friston|first2=Karl|last3=Horwitz|first3=Barry|date=2006-05|title=Large-scale neural models and dynamic causal modelling|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.007|journal=NeuroImage|volume=30|issue=4|pages=1243–1254|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.007|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>.
* Predictive validity assesses the ability to predict known or expected effects. This has included testing against iEEG / EEG / stimulation <ref>{{Cite journal|last=David|first=Olivier|last2=Guillemain|first2=Isabelle|last3=Saillet|first3=Sandrine|last4=Reyt|first4=Sebastien|last5=Deransart|first5=Colin|last6=Segebarth|first6=Christoph|last7=Depaulis|first7=Antoine|date=2008-12-23|title=Identifying Neural Drivers with Functional MRI: An Electrophysiological Validation|url=http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060315|journal=PLOS Biology|language=en|volume=6|issue=12|pages=e315|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060315|issn=1545-7885|pmc=PMC2605917|pmid=19108604}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=David|first=Olivier|last2=Woźniak|first2=Agata|last3=Minotti|first3=Lorella|last4=Kahane|first4=Philippe|date=2008-02|title=Preictal short-term plasticity induced by intracerebral 1 Hz stimulation|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.005|journal=NeuroImage|volume=39|issue=4|pages=1633–1646|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.005|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Reyt|first=Sébastien|last2=Picq|first2=Chloé|last3=Sinniger|first3=Valérie|last4=Clarençon|first4=Didier|last5=Bonaz|first5=Bruno|last6=David|first6=Olivier|date=2010-10|title=Dynamic Causal Modelling and physiological confounds: A functional MRI study of vagus nerve stimulation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.021|journal=NeuroImage|volume=52|issue=4|pages=1456–1464|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.021|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Daunizeau|first=J.|last2=Lemieux|first2=L.|last3=Vaudano|first3=A. E.|last4=Friston|first4=K. J.|last5=Stephan|first5=K. E.|date=2013|title=An electrophysiological validation of stochastic DCM for fMRI|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00103|journal=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience|volume=6|doi=10.3389/fncom.2012.00103|issn=1662-5188}}</ref> and against known pharmacological treatments <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moran|first=Rosalyn J.|last2=Symmonds|first2=Mkael|last3=Stephan|first3=Klaas E.|last4=Friston|first4=Karl J.|last5=Dolan|first5=Raymond J.|date=2011-08|title=An In Vivo Assay of Synaptic Function Mediating Human Cognition|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.053|journal=Current Biology|volume=21|issue=15|pages=1320–1325|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.053|issn=0960-9822}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moran|first=Rosalyn J.|last2=Jung|first2=Fabienne|last3=Kumagai|first3=Tetsuya|last4=Endepols|first4=Heike|last5=Graf|first5=Rudolf|last6=Dolan|first6=Raymond J.|last7=Friston|first7=Karl J.|last8=Stephan|first8=Klaas E.|last9=Tittgemeyer|first9=Marc|date=2011-08-02|title=Dynamic Causal Models and Physiological Inference: A Validation Study Using Isoflurane Anaesthesia in Rodents|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022790|journal=PLoS ONE|volume=6|issue=8|pages=e22790|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0022790|issn=1932-6203}}</ref>.
== Limitations / drawbacks ==
DCM is a hypothesis-driven approach for investigating the interactions among pre-defined regions of interest. It is not ideally suited for exploratory analyses <ref name=":0" />. Although methods have been implemented for
The variational Bayesian methods used for model estimation used approximations based on the Laplace approximation that the parameters are normally distributed. This approximation can break down in the context of highly non-linear models, such as those used in EEG / MEG analysis, where local minima can preclude the free energy from serving as a close lower bound on log model evidence.
== Software implementations ==
| |||