Comparing Within-Subject Classification and Regularization Methods in fMRI for Large and Small Sample sizes

被引:19
作者
Churchill, Nathan W. [1 ,2 ]
Yourganov, Grigori [1 ,3 ]
Strother, Stephen C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Baycrest Hosp, Rotman Res Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Med Biophys, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Inst Med Sci, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
BOLD fMRI; preprocessing; model optimization; data-driven metrics; head motion; physiological noise; multivariate analysis; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING EXPERIMENTS; QUANTITATIVE-EVALUATION; PATTERN-CLASSIFICATION; PREPROCESSING CHOICES; ALZHEIMERS-DISEASE; COMPONENT ANALYSIS; BRAIN ACTIVITY; DEFAULT-MODE; NETWORKS; REPRESENTATIONS;
D O I
10.1002/hbm.22490
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
In recent years, a variety of multivariate classifier models have been applied to fMRI, with different modeling assumptions. When classifying high-dimensional fMRI data, we must also regularize to improve model stability, and the interactions between classifier and regularization techniques are still being investigated. Classifiers are usually compared on large, multisubject fMRI datasets. However, it is unclear how classifier/regularizer models perform for within-subject analyses, as a function of signal strength and sample size. We compare four standard classifiers: Linear and Quadratic Discriminants, Logistic Regression and Support Vector Machines. Classification was performed on data in the linear kernel (covariance) feature space, and classifiers are tuned with four commonly-used regularizers: Principal Component and Independent Component Analysis, and penalization of kernel features using L-1 and L-2 norms. We evaluated prediction accuracy (P) and spatial reproducibility (R) of all classifier/regularizer combinations on single-subject analyses, over a range of three different block task contrasts and sample sizes for a BOLD fMRI experiment. We show that the classifier model has a small impact on signal detection, compared to the choice of regularizer. PCA maximizes reproducibility and global SNR, whereas L-p-norms tend to maximize prediction. ICA produces low reproducibility, and prediction accuracy is classifier-dependent. However, trade-offs in (P, R) depend partly on the optimization criterion, and PCA-based models are able to explore the widest range of (P, R) values. These trends are consistent across task contrasts and data sizes (training samples range from 6 to 96 scans). In addition, the trends in classifier performance are consistent for ROI-based classifier analyses. Hum Brain Mapp 35:4499-4517, 2014. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:4499 / 4517
页数:19
相关论文
共 57 条
[21]   Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex [J].
Haxby, JV ;
Gobbini, MI ;
Furey, ML ;
Ishai, A ;
Schouten, JL ;
Pietrini, P .
SCIENCE, 2001, 293 (5539) :2425-2430
[22]   Independent component analysis:: algorithms and applications [J].
Hyvärinen, A ;
Oja, E .
NEURAL NETWORKS, 2000, 13 (4-5) :411-430
[23]   The quantitative evaluation of functional neuroimaging experiments: Mutual information learning curves [J].
Kjems, U ;
Hansen, LK ;
Anderson, J ;
Frutiger, S ;
Muley, S ;
Sidtis, J ;
Rottenberg, D ;
Strother, SC .
NEUROIMAGE, 2002, 15 (04) :772-786
[24]   A three-dimensional MRI atlas of the mouse brain with estimates of the average and variability [J].
Kovacevic, N ;
Henderson, JT ;
Chan, E ;
Lifshitz, N ;
Bishop, J ;
Evans, AC ;
Henkelman, RM ;
Chen, XJ .
CEREBRAL CORTEX, 2005, 15 (05) :639-645
[25]   Support vector machines for temporal classification of block design fMRI data [J].
LaConte, S ;
Strother, S ;
Cherkassky, V ;
Anderson, J ;
Hu, XP .
NEUROIMAGE, 2005, 26 (02) :317-329
[26]   The evaluation of preprocessing choices in single-subject BOLD fMRI using NPAIRS performance metrics [J].
LaConte, S ;
Anderson, J ;
Muley, S ;
Ashe, J ;
Frutiger, S ;
Rehm, K ;
Hansen, LK ;
Yacoub, E ;
Hu, XP ;
Rottenberg, D ;
Strother, S .
NEUROIMAGE, 2003, 18 (01) :10-27
[27]   An evaluation of methods for detecting brain activations from functional neuroimages [J].
Lukic, AS ;
Wernick, MN ;
Strother, SC .
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE, 2002, 25 (01) :69-88
[28]   Neurocognitive endophenotypes of obsessive-compulsive disorder [J].
Menzies, Lara ;
Achard, Sophie ;
Chamberlain, Samuel R. ;
Fineberg, Naomi ;
Chen, Chi-Hua ;
Del Campo, Natalia ;
Sahakian, Barbara J. ;
Robbins, Trevor W. ;
Bullmore, Edward T. .
BRAIN, 2007, 130 :3223-3236
[29]   Comparison of multivariate classifiers and response normalizations for pattern-information fMRI [J].
Misaki, Masaya ;
Kim, Youn ;
Bandettini, Peter A. ;
Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus .
NEUROIMAGE, 2010, 53 (01) :103-118
[30]   Learning to decode cognitive states from brain images [J].
Mitchell, TM ;
Hutchinson, R ;
Niculescu, RS ;
Pereira, F ;
Wang, XR ;
Just, M ;
Newman, S .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2004, 57 (1-2) :145-175