The effects of computational method, data modeling, and TR on effective connectivity results

Brain Imaging and Behavior

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 220-231

  Witt, Suzanne T ^a   Meyerand, M Elizabeth ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

Author keywords

Autoregressive analysis; Dynamic causal modeling; Effective connectivity; Granger causality; Sources of variance; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DYNAMICS; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

EID: 77949658536     PISSN: 19317557     EISSN: 19317565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11682-009-9064-5     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arfanakis, K., Cordes, D., Haughton, V. M., Moritz, C. H., Quigley, M. E., & Meyerand, M. E. (2000). Combining independent component analysis and correlation analysis to probe interregional connectivity in fMRI task activation datasets. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 18, 921-930. doi: 10. 1016/S0730-725X(00) 00190-9.
2. Bokde, A. L., Tagamets, M. A., Friedman, R. B., & Horwitz, B. (2001). Functional interactions of the inferior frontal cortex during the processing of words and word-like stimuli. Neuron, 30, 609-617. doi: 10. 1016/S0896-6273(01) 00288-4.
3. Buchel, C., & Friston, K. J. (1997). Modulation of connectivity in visual pathways by attention: Cortical interactions evaluated with structural equation modeling and fMRI. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N. Y.), 7, 768-778. doi: 10. 1093/cercor/7. 8. 768.
4. Bullmore, E. T., Horwitz, B., Honey, G., Brammer, M., Williams, S., & Sharma, T. (2000). How good is good enough in path analysis of fMRI data? NeuroImage, 11, 289-301. doi: 10. 1006/nimg. 2000. 0544.
5. Buxton, R. B., Wong, E. C., & Frank, L. R. (1998). Dynamics of blood flow and oxygenation changes during brain activation: The Balloon model. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 39, 855-864. doi: 10. 1002/mrm. 1910390602.
6. Caclin, A., & Fonlupt, P. (2006). Effect of initial fMRI data modeling on the connectivity reported between brain areas. NeuroImage, 33, 515-521. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2006. 07. 019.
7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 112. 1. 155.
8. Friston, K. J. (2002). Bayesian estimation of dynamical systems: An application to fMRI. NeuroImage, 16, 513-530. doi: 10. 1006/nimg. 2001. 1044.
9. Friston, K. J., & Buchel, C. (2000). Attentional modulation of effective connectiv ity from V2 to V5/MT in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 7591-7596. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 97. 13. 7591.
10. Friston, K. J., Harrison, L., & Penny, W. (2003). Dynamic causal modeling. NeuroImage, 19, 1273-1302. doi: 10. 1016/S1053-8119(03) 00202-7.
11. Geweke, J. (1982). Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 304-313. doi: 10. 2307/2287238.
12. Geweke, J. (1984). Measures of conditional linear dependence and feedback between time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 907-915. doi: 10. 2307/2288723.
13. Goebel, R., Roebroeck, A., Kim, D. S., & Formisano, E. (2003). Investigating directed cortical interactions in time-resolved fMRI data using vector autoregressive modeling and Granger causality mapping. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 21, 1251-1261. doi: 10. 1016/j. mri. 2003. 08. 026.
14. Goncalves, M. S., Hall, D. A., Johnsrude, I. S., & Haggard, M. P. (2001). Can meaningful effective connectivities be obtained between auditory cortical regions? NeuroImage, 14, 1353-1360. doi: 10. 1006/nimg. 2001. 0954.
15. Grafton, S. T., Sutton, J., Couldwell, W., Lew, M., & Waters, C. (1994). Network analysis of motor system connectivity in Parkinson's disease: Modulation of thalamocortical interactions after pallidotomy. Human Brain Mapping, 2, 45-55. doi: 10. 1002/hbm. 460020106.
16. Hampson, M., Peterson, B. S., Skudlarski, P., Gatenby, J. C., & Gore, J. C. (2002). Detection of functional connectivity using temporal correlations in MR images. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 247-262. doi: 10. 1002/hbm. 10022.
17. Harrison, L., Penny, W. D., & Friston, K. (2003). Multivariate autoregressive modeling of fMRI time series. NeuroImage, 19, 1477-1491. doi: 10. 1016/S1053-8119(03) 00160-5.
18. Homae, F., Yahata, N., & Sakai, K. L. (2003). Selective enhancement of functional connectivity in the left prefrontal cortex during sentence processing. NeuroImage, 20, 578-586. doi: 10. 1016/S1053-8119(03) 00272-6.
19. Honey, G. D., Fu, C. H., Kim, J., Brammer, M. J., Croudace, T. J., Suckling, J., et al. (2002). Effects of verbal working memory load on corticocortical connectivity modeled by path analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. NeuroImage, 17, 573-582. doi: 10. 1016/S1053-8119(02) 91193-6.
20. Horwitz, B. (2003). The elusive concept of brain connectivity. NeuroImage, 19, 466-470. doi: 10. 1016/S1053-8119(03) 00112-5.
21. Horwitz, B., Warner, B., Fitzer, J., Tagamets, M. A., Husain, F. T., & Long, T. W. (2005). Investigating the neural basis for functional and effective connectivity. Application to fMRI. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 360, 1093-1108. doi: 10. 1098/rstb. 2005. 1647.
22. Kim, J., Zhu, W., Chang, L., Bentler, P. M., & Ernst, T. (2007). Unified structural equation modeling approach for the analysis of multisubject, multivariate functional MRI data. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 85-93. doi: 10. 1002/hbm. 20259.
23. Maguire, E. A. (2001). Neuroimaging, memory and the human hippocampus. Revue Neurologique, 157, 791-794.
24. McIntosh, A. R., & Gonzales-Lima, F. (1994). Structural equation modeling and its application to network analysis in functional brain imaging. Human Brain Mapping, 2, 2-22. doi: 10. 1002/hbm. 460020104.
25. Neumaier, A., & Schneider, T. (2001). Estimations of parameters and eigenmodes of multivariate autoregressive models. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 27, 27-57. doi: 10. 1145/382043. 382304.
26. Penny, W. D., Stephan, K. E., Mechelli, A., & Friskton, K. J. (2004). Comparing dynamic causal models. NeuroImage, 22, 1157-1172. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2004. 03. 026.
27. Protzner, A. B., & McIntosh, A. R. (2006). Testing effective connectivity changes with structural equation modeling: What does a bad model tell us? Human Brain Mapping, 27, 935-947. doi: 10. 1002/hbm. 20233.
28. Ramnani, N., Behrens, T., Penny, W. D., & Matthews, P. M. (2004). New approaches for exploring anatomical and functional connectivity in the human brain. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 613-619. doi: 10. 1016/j. biopsych. 2004. 02. 004.
29. Roebroeck, A., Formisano, E., & Goebel, R. (2005). Mapping directed influence over the brain using Granger causality and fMRI. NeuroImage, 25, 230-242. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2004. 11. 017.
30. Rogers, B. P., Morgan, V. L., Newton, A. T., & Gore, J. C. (2007). Assessing functional connectivity in the human brain by fMRI. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 25, 1347-1357. doi: 10. 1016/j. mri. 2007. 03. 007.
31. Yamashita, O., Sadato, N., Okada, T., & Ozaki, T. (2005). Evaluating frequency-wise directed connectivity of BOLD signals applying relative power contribution with the linear multivariate time-series models. NeuroImage, 25, 478-490. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2004. 11. 042.
32. Zhuang, J., LaConte, S., Peltier, S., Zhang, K., & Hu, X. (2005). Connectivity exploration with structural equation modeling: An fMRI study of bimanual motor coordination. NeuroImage, 25, 462-470. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2004. 11. 007.