Dynamic causal modeling: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:47, 2 November 2018

Revision as of 21:16, 25 November 2018

Line 3:

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

'''Dynamic causal modeling''' (DCM) is a framework for specifying models, fitting them to data and comparing their evidence using [[Bayes factor|Bayesian model comparison]]. It uses nonlinear [[State space|state-space]] models in continuous time, specified using [[Stochastic differential equation|stochastic]] or [[Ordinaryordinary differential equation|ordinary differential equations]]s. DCM was initially developed for testing hypotheses about [[Dynamical system|neural dynamics]].<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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=19|issue=4|pages=1273–1302|doi=10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. In this setting, differential equations describe the interaction of neural populations, which directly or indirectly give rise to functional neuroimaging data e.g., [[functional magnetic resonance imaging]] (fMRI), [[magnetoencephalography]] (MEG) or [[electroencephalography]] (EEG). Parameters in these models quantify the directed influences or effective connectivity among neuronal populations, which are estimated from the data using [[Bayesian inference|Bayesian]] statistical methods.

== Procedure ==

DCM is typically used to estimate the coupling among brain regions and the changes in coupling due to experimental changes (e.g., time or context). A model of interacting neural populations is specified, with a level biological detail dependent on the hypotheses and available data. This is coupled with a forward model describing how neural activity gives rise to measured responses. Estimating the generative model identifies the parameters (e.g. connection strengths) from the observed data. [[Bayesian model comparison]] is used to compare models based on their evidence, which can then be characterised in terms of parameters.

DCM studies typically involve the following stages :<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Stephan|first=K.E.|last2=Penny|first2=W.D.|last3=Moran|first3=R.J.|last4=den Ouden|first4=H.E.M.|last5=Daunizeau|first5=J.|last6=Friston|first6=K.J.|date=2010-02|title=Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling|journal=NeuroImage|volume=49|issue=4|pages=3099–3109|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.015|pmid=19914382|pmc=2825373|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>:

# Experimental design. Specific hypotheses are formulated and an experiment is conducted.

Line 19:

== Experimental design ==

Functional neuroimaging experiments are typically either task-based or examine brain activity at rest ([[Resting state fMRI|resting state]]). In task-based experiments, brain responses are evoked by known deterministic inputs (experimentally controlled stimuli). These experimental variables can change neural activity through direct influences on specific brain regions, such as [[Evokedevoked potential|evoked potentials]]s in the early visual cortex, or via a modulation of coupling among neural populations; for example, the influence of attention. These two types of input - driving and modulatory - are parameterized separately in DCM.<ref name=":2" />. To enable efficient estimation of driving and modulatory effects, a 2x2 [[Factorial experiment|factorial experimental design]] is often used - with one factor serving 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, hypotheses are tested about the coupling of endogenous fluctuations in neuronal activity, or in the differences in connectivity between sessions or subjects. The DCM framework includes models and procedures for analysing resting state data, described in the next section.

== Model specification ==

All models in DCM have the following basic form:

<math>\begin{align}

Line 31:

\end{align}</math>

The first equality describes the change in neural activity <math>z</math> with respect to time (i.e. <math>\dot{z}</math>), which cannot be directly observed using non-invasive functional imaging modalities. The evolution of neural activity over time is controlled by a neural function <math>f</math> with parameters <math>\theta^{(n)}</math> and experimental inputs <math>u</math>. The neural activity in turn causes the timeseries <math>y</math> (second equality), which are generated via an observation function <math>g</math> with parameters <math>\theta^{(h)}</math>. Additive observation noise <math>\epsilon</math> completes the observation model. Usually, the neural parameters <math>\theta^{(n)}</math> are of key interest, which for example represent connection strengths that may change under different experimental conditions.

Specifying a DCM requires selecting a neural model <math>f</math> and observation model <math>g</math> and setting appropriate [[Prior probability|priors]] over the parameters; e.g. selecting which connections should be switched on or off.

==== Functional MRI ====

[[File:DCM for fMRI.svg|alt=DCM for fMRI neural circuit|thumb|The neural model in DCM for fMRI. z1 and z2 are the mean levels of activity in each region. Parameters A are the effective connectivity, B is the modulation of connectivity by a specific experimental condition and C is the driving input. ]]

The neural model in DCM for fMRI is a [[Taylor series|Taylor approximation]] that captures the gross causal influences between brain regions and their change due to experimental inputs (see picture). This is coupled with a detailed biophysical model of the generation of the BOLD response and the MRI signal,<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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=19|issue=4|pages=1273–1302|doi=10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>, 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|journal=Magnetic Resonance in Medicine|volume=39|issue=6|pages=855–864|doi=10.1002/mrm.1910390602|issn=0740-3194}}</ref>, which was supplemented with a model of neurovascular coupling .<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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=12|issue=4|pages=466–477|doi=10.1006/nimg.2000.0630|pmid=10988040|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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=38|issue=3|pages=387–401|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.040|pmid=17884583|pmc=2636182|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. Additions to the neural model have included interactions between 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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=39|issue=1|pages=269–278|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.019|pmid=17936017|issn=1053-8119|citeseerx=10.1.1.160.1281}}</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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=42|issue=2|pages=649–662|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.262|issn=1053-8119|pmc=2636907|pmid=18565765}}</ref>.

DCM for resting state studies 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|pmid=21310247|issn=1053-8119|last1=Li|first1=Baojuan|last2=Daunizeau|first2=Jean|last3=Stephan|first3=Klaas E|last4=Penny|first4=Will|last5=Hu|first5=Dewen|last6=Friston|first6=Karl}}</ref>, which estimates both neural fluctuations and connectivity parameters in the time ___domain, using [[Generalized filtering|Generalized Filtering]]. A more efficient scheme for resting state data was subsequently introduced which operates in the frequency ___domain, called DCM for Cross-Spectral Density (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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=94|pages=396–407|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.009|pmid=24345387|pmc=4073651|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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=106|pages=1–14|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.027|issn=1053-8119|pmc=4295921|pmid=25463471}}</ref>. Both of these can be applied to large-scale brain networks by constraining the connectivity parameters based on the functional connectivity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Seghier|first=Mohamed L.|last2=Friston|first2=Karl J.|date=2013-03|title=Network discovery with large DCMs|journal=NeuroImage|volume=68|pages=181–191|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.005|issn=1053-8119|pmc=3566585|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|journal=Network Neuroscience|language=en|volume=1|issue=3|pages=222–241|doi=10.1162/netn_a_00015|issn=2472-1751|pmc=5796644|pmid=29400357}}</ref>. Another recent development for resting state analysis 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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=155|pages=406–421|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.090|pmid=28259780|issn=1053-8119}}</ref> implemented in the Tapas software collection (see [[#Software implementations|Software implementations]]). Regression DCM operates in the frequency ___domain, but linearizes the model under certain simplifications, such as having a fixed (canonical) haemodynamic response function. The enables rapid estimation of large-scale brain networks.

[[File:DCM for ERP and CMC.svg|thumb|Models of the cortical column used in EEG/MEG/LFP analysis. Self-connections on each population are present but not shown for clarity. Left: DCM for ERP. Right: Canonical Microcircuit (CMC). 1=spiny stellate cells (layer IV), 2=inhibitory interneurons, 3=(deep) pyramidal cells and 4=superficial pyramidal cells.]]

==== EEG / MEG ====

DCM for EEG and MEG data use more biologically detailed neural models than fMRI, due to the higher temporal resolution of these measurement techniques. These can be classed into physiological models, which recapitulate neural circuity, and phenomenological models, which focus on reproducing particular data features. The physiological models can be further subdivided into two classes. [http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Conductance-based_models Conductance-based models] derive from the equivalent circuit representation of the cell membrane developed by Hodgkin and Huxley in the 1950s.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Hodgkin|first=A. L.|last2=Huxley|first2=A. F.|date=1952-04-28|title=The components of membrane conductance in the giant axon ofLoligo|journal=The Journal of Physiology|volume=116|issue=4|pages=473–496|doi=10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004718|issn=0022-3751}}</ref> . Convolution models were introduced by [[Wilson–Cowan model|Wilson & Cowan]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wilson|first=H. R.|last2=Cowan|first2=J. D.|date=1973-09|title=A mathematical theory of the functional dynamics of cortical and thalamic nervous tissue|journal=Kybernetik|volume=13|issue=2|pages=55–80|doi=10.1007/bf00288786|pmid=4767470|issn=0340-1200}}</ref> and Freeman <ref>{{Cite book|date=1975|title=Mass Action in the Nervous System|doi=10.1016/c2009-0-03145-6|isbn=9780122671500|last1=Freeman|first1=Walter J}}</ref> in the 1970s and involve a convolution of pre-synaptic input by a synaptic kernel function. Some of the specific models used in DCM are as follows:

* Physiological models:

** Convolution models:

*** 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:|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.|date=2009-07-31|pages=141–170|publisher=The MIT Press|isbn=9780262013086|last2=Garrido|first2=Marta I.|last3=Friston|first3=Karl J.|doi=10.7551/mitpress/9780262013086.003.0006|chapter=Dynamic Causal Modeling for Evoked Responses|title=Brain Signal Analysis}}</ref>. This is a biologically plausible neural mass model, extending earlier work by 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|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 (see picture), each of which rests on two operators. The first operator transforms the pre-synaptic firing rate into a Post-Synaptic Potential (PSP), by [[Convolution|convolving]] pre-synaptic input with a synaptic response function (kernel). The second operator, a [[Sigmoid function|sigmoid]] function, transforms the membrane potential into a firing rate of action potentials.

*** DCM for LFP (Local Field Potentials).<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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=37|issue=3|pages=706–720|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.032|pmid=17632015|pmc=2644418|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. Extends DCM for ERP by adding the effects of specific ion channels on spike generation.

*** Canonical Microcircuit (CMC).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bastos|first=Andre M.|last2=Usrey|first2=W. Martin|last3=Adams|first3=Rick A.|last4=Mangun|first4=George R.|last5=Fries|first5=Pascal|last6=Friston|first6=Karl J.|date=2012-11|title=Canonical Microcircuits for Predictive Coding|journal=Neuron|volume=76|issue=4|pages=695–711|doi=10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038|pmid=23177956|pmc=3777738|issn=0896-6273}}</ref>. Used to address hypotheses about laminar-specific ascending and descending connections in the brain, which underpin the [[predictive coding]] account of functional brain architectures. The single pyramidal cell population from DCM for ERP is split into deep and superficial populations (see picture). A version of the CMC has been applied to model multi-modal MEG and fMRI data.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Friston|first=K.J.|last2=Preller|first2=Katrin H.|last3=Mathys|first3=Chris|last4=Cagnan|first4=Hayriye|last5=Heinzle|first5=Jakob|last6=Razi|first6=Adeel|last7=Zeidman|first7=Peter|date=2017-02|title=Dynamic causal modelling revisited|journal=NeuroImage|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.045|pmid=28219774|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>.

***Neural Field Model (NFM).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pinotsis|first=D.A.|last2=Friston|first2=K.J.|date=2011-03|title=Neural fields, spectral responses and lateral connections|journal=NeuroImage|volume=55|issue=1|pages=39–48|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.081|pmid=21138771|pmc=3049874|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. Extends the models above into the spatial ___domain, modelling continuous changes in current across the cortical sheet.

** Conductance models:

***Neural Mass Model (NMM) and Mean-field model (MFM).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marreiros|first=André C.|last2=Daunizeau|first2=Jean|last3=Kiebel|first3=Stefan J.|last4=Friston|first4=Karl J.|date=2008-08|title=Population dynamics: Variance and the sigmoid activation function|journal=NeuroImage|volume=42|issue=1|pages=147–157|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.239|pmid=18547818|issn=1053-8119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marreiros|first=André C.|last2=Kiebel|first2=Stefan J.|last3=Daunizeau|first3=Jean|last4=Harrison|first4=Lee M.|last5=Friston|first5=Karl J.|date=2009-02|title=Population dynamics under the Laplace assumption|journal=NeuroImage|volume=44|issue=3|pages=701–714|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.008|pmid=19013532|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>. These have the same arrangement of neural populations as DCM for ERP, above, but are based on the [[Morris–Lecar model|Morris-Lecar model]] of the barnacle muscle fibre ,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Morris|first=C.|last2=Lecar|first2=H.|date=1981-07|title=Voltage oscillations in the barnacle giant muscle fiber|journal=Biophysical Journal|volume=35|issue=1|pages=193–213|doi=10.1016/s0006-3495(81)84782-0|pmid=7260316|pmc=1327511|issn=0006-3495}}</ref>, which in turn derives from the [[Hodgkin–Huxley model|Hodgin and Huxley]] model of the giant squid axon.<ref name=":5" />. They enable inference about ligand-gated excitatory (Na+) and inhibitory (Cl-) ion flow, mediated through fast glutamatergic and GABAergic receptors. Whereas DCM for fMRI and the convolution models represent the activity of each neural population by a single number - its mean activity - the conductance models include the full density (probability distribution) of activity within the population. The 'mean-field assumption' used in the MFM version of the model assumes the density of one population's activity depends only on the mean of another. A subsequent extension added voltage-gated NMDA ion channels.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moran|first=Rosalyn J.|last2=Stephan|first2=Klaas E.|last3=Dolan|first3=Raymond J.|last4=Friston|first4=Karl J.|date=2011-04|title=Consistent spectral predictors for dynamic causal models of steady-state responses|journal=NeuroImage|volume=55|issue=4|pages=1694–1708|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.012|issn=1053-8119|pmc=3093618|pmid=21238593}}</ref>.

****

* Phenomenological models:

**DCM for phase coupling.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Penny|first=W.D.|last2=Litvak|first2=V.|last3=Fuentemilla|first3=L.|last4=Duzel|first4=E.|last5=Friston|first5=K.|date=2009-09|title=Dynamic Causal Models for phase coupling|journal=Journal of Neuroscience Methods|volume=183|issue=1|pages=19–30|doi=10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.06.029|pmid=19576931|pmc=2751835|issn=0165-0270}}</ref>. Models the interaction of brain regions as Weakly Coupled Oscillators (WCOs), in which the rate of change of phase of one oscillator is related to the phase differences between itself and other oscillators.

== Model estimation ==

Model inversion or estimation is implemented in DCM using [[Variational Bayesian methods|variational Bayes]] under the [[Laplace's method|Laplace assumption]].<ref>{{Citation|last=Friston|first=K.|date=2007|pages=606–618|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=9780123725608|last2=Mattout|first2=J.|last3=Trujillo-Barreto|first3=N.|last4=Ashburner|first4=J.|last5=Penny|first5=W.|doi=10.1016/b978-012372560-8/50047-4|chapter=Variational Bayes under the Laplace approximation|title=Statistical Parametric Mapping}}</ref>. This provides two useful quantities: the log marginal likelihood or model evidence <math>\ln{p(y|m)}</math>is the probability of observing of the data under a given model. Generally, this cannot be calculated explicitly and is approximated by a quantity called the negative variational free energy <math>F</math>, referred to in machine learning as the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO). Hypotheses are tested by comparing the evidence for different models based on their free energy, a procedure called Bayesian model comparison.

Model estimation also provides estimates of the parameters <math>p(\theta|y)</math>, for example connection strengths, which maximise the free energy. Where models differ only in their priors, [[Bayesian model reduction|Bayesian Model Reduction]] can be used to derive the evidence and parameters of nested or reduced models analytically and efficiently.

== Model comparison ==

Neuroimaging studies typically investigate effects that are conserved at the group level, or which differ between subjects. There are two predominant approaches for group-level analysis: random effects Bayesian Model Selection (BMS)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rigoux|first=L.|last2=Stephan|first2=K.E.|last3=Friston|first3=K.J.|last4=Daunizeau|first4=J.|date=2014-01|title=Bayesian model selection for group studies — Revisited|journal=NeuroImage|volume=84|pages=971–985|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.065|pmid=24018303|issn=1053-8119}}</ref> and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB).<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Friston|first=Karl J.|last2=Litvak|first2=Vladimir|last3=Oswal|first3=Ashwini|last4=Razi|first4=Adeel|last5=Stephan|first5=Klaas E.|last6=van Wijk|first6=Bernadette C.M.|last7=Ziegler|first7=Gabriel|last8=Zeidman|first8=Peter|date=2016-03|title=Bayesian model reduction and empirical Bayes for group (DCM) studies|journal=NeuroImage|volume=128|pages=413–431|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.015|issn=1053-8119|pmc=4767224|pmid=26569570}}</ref>. Random Effects BMS posits that subjects differ in terms of which model generated their data - e.g. drawing a random subject from the population, there might be a 25% chance that their brain is structured like model 1 and a 75% chance that it is structured like model 2. The analysis pipeline for the BMS approach procedure follows a series of steps:

# Specify and estimate multiple DCMs per subject, where each DCM (or set of DCMs) embodies a hypothesis.

Line 77:

== Validation ==

Developments in DCM have been validated using different approaches:

* Face validity establishes whether the parameters of a model can be recovered from simulated data. This is usually performed alongside the development of each new model (E.g. <ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />).

* Construct validity assesses consistency with other analytical methods. For example, DCM has been compared with 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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=23|pages=S264–S274|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.041|pmid=15501096|issn=1053-8119|citeseerx=10.1.1.160.3141}}</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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=30|issue=4|pages=1243–1254|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.007|pmid=16387513|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|journal=PLOS Biology|language=en|volume=6|issue=12|pages=2683–97|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060315|issn=1545-7885|pmc=2605917|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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=39|issue=4|pages=1633–1646|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.005|pmid=18155929|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|journal=NeuroImage|volume=52|issue=4|pages=1456–1464|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.05.021|pmid=20472074|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|journal=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience|volume=6|pages=103|doi=10.3389/fncom.2012.00103|pmid=23346055|pmc=3548242|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|journal=Current Biology|volume=21|issue=15|pages=1320–1325|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.053|pmid=21802302|pmc=3153654|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|journal=PLoS ONE|volume=6|issue=8|pages=e22790|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0022790|pmid=21829652|pmc=3149050|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 automatically searching over reduced models ([[Bayesian model reduction|Bayesian Model Reduction]]) and for modelling large-scale brain networks,<ref name=":4" />, these methods require an explicit specification of model space. In neuroimaging, approaches such as [[Psychophysiological Interaction|psychophysiological interaction (PPI)]] analysis may be more appropriate for exploratory use; especially for discovering key nodes for subsequent DCM analysis.

The variational Bayesian methods used for model estimation in DCM are based on the Laplace assumption, which treats the posterior over parameters as Gaussian. This approximation can fail in the context of highly non-linear models, where local minima may preclude the free energy from serving as a tight bound on log model evidence. Sampling approaches provide the gold standard; however, they are time consuming and have typically been used to validate the variational approximations in DCM.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chumbley|first=Justin R.|last2=Friston|first2=Karl J.|last3=Fearn|first3=Tom|last4=Kiebel|first4=Stefan J.|date=2007-11|title=A Metropolis–Hastings algorithm for dynamic causal models|journal=NeuroImage|volume=38|issue=3|pages=478–487|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.028|pmid=17884582|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>.

== Software implementations ==

Line 97:

* Understanding DCM: ten simple rules for the clinician<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kahan|first=Joshua|last2=Foltynie|first2=Tom|date=2013-12|title=Understanding DCM: Ten simple rules for the clinician|journal=NeuroImage|volume=83|pages=542–549|doi=10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.008|pmid=23850463|issn=1053-8119}}</ref>

* Neural masses and fields in dynamic causal modeling<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moran|first=Rosalyn|last2=Pinotsis|first2=Dimitris A.|last3=Friston|first3=Karl|date=2013|title=Neural masses and fields in dynamic causal modeling|journal=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience|volume=7|pages=57|doi=10.3389/fncom.2013.00057|pmid=23755005|pmc=3664834|issn=1662-5188}}</ref>

[[:Category:Neuroimaging]]

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

[[:Category:Neuroimaging]]