Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?

We consider the problem of selecting the optimal orders of vector autoregressive (VAR) models for fMRI data.Many previous studies used model order of one and ignored that it may vary considerably across data sets depending on different data dimensions, subjects, tasks, and experimental designs. In a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ting, Chee-Ming, Seghouane, Abd-Krim, Khalid, Muhammad Usman, Salleh, Sh-Hussain
Format: Article
Published: MIT Press Journals 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/58448/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00765
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.utm.58448
record_format eprints
spelling my.utm.584482016-12-07T00:57:29Z http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/58448/ Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data? Ting, Chee-Ming Seghouane, Abd-Krim Khalid, Muhammad Usman Salleh, Sh-Hussain R Medicine (General) We consider the problem of selecting the optimal orders of vector autoregressive (VAR) models for fMRI data.Many previous studies used model order of one and ignored that it may vary considerably across data sets depending on different data dimensions, subjects, tasks, and experimental designs. In addition, the classical information criteria (IC) used (e.g., the Akaike IC (AIC)) are biased and inappropriate for the high-dimensional fMRI data typically with a small sample size. We examine the mixed results on the optimal VAR orders for fMRI, especially the validity of the order-one hypothesis, by a comprehensive evaluation using different model selection criteria over three typical data types-a resting state, an event-related design, and a block design data set-with varying time series dimensions obtained from distinct functional brain networks. We use a more balanced criterion, Kullback's IC (KIC) based on Kullback's symmetric divergence combining two directed divergences.We also consider the bias-corrected versions (AICc and KICc) to improve VAR model selection in small samples. Simulation results show better small-sample selection performance of the proposed criteria over the classical ones. Both bias-corrected ICs provide more accurate and consistent model order choices than their biased counterparts, which suffer from overfitting, with KICc performing the best. Results on real data show that orders greater than one were selected by all criteria across all data sets for the small to moderate dimensions, particularly from small, specific networks such as the resting-state default mode network and the task-related motor networks, whereas low orders close to one but not necessarily one were chosen for the large dimensions of full-brain networks. MIT Press Journals 2015-09 Article PeerReviewed Ting, Chee-Ming and Seghouane, Abd-Krim and Khalid, Muhammad Usman and Salleh, Sh-Hussain (2015) Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data? Neural Computation, 27 (9). pp. 1857-1871. ISSN 8991-561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00765 DOI:10.1162/NECO_a_00765
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
building UTM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
content_source UTM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://eprints.utm.my/
topic R Medicine (General)
spellingShingle R Medicine (General)
Ting, Chee-Ming
Seghouane, Abd-Krim
Khalid, Muhammad Usman
Salleh, Sh-Hussain
Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
description We consider the problem of selecting the optimal orders of vector autoregressive (VAR) models for fMRI data.Many previous studies used model order of one and ignored that it may vary considerably across data sets depending on different data dimensions, subjects, tasks, and experimental designs. In addition, the classical information criteria (IC) used (e.g., the Akaike IC (AIC)) are biased and inappropriate for the high-dimensional fMRI data typically with a small sample size. We examine the mixed results on the optimal VAR orders for fMRI, especially the validity of the order-one hypothesis, by a comprehensive evaluation using different model selection criteria over three typical data types-a resting state, an event-related design, and a block design data set-with varying time series dimensions obtained from distinct functional brain networks. We use a more balanced criterion, Kullback's IC (KIC) based on Kullback's symmetric divergence combining two directed divergences.We also consider the bias-corrected versions (AICc and KICc) to improve VAR model selection in small samples. Simulation results show better small-sample selection performance of the proposed criteria over the classical ones. Both bias-corrected ICs provide more accurate and consistent model order choices than their biased counterparts, which suffer from overfitting, with KICc performing the best. Results on real data show that orders greater than one were selected by all criteria across all data sets for the small to moderate dimensions, particularly from small, specific networks such as the resting-state default mode network and the task-related motor networks, whereas low orders close to one but not necessarily one were chosen for the large dimensions of full-brain networks.
format Article
author Ting, Chee-Ming
Seghouane, Abd-Krim
Khalid, Muhammad Usman
Salleh, Sh-Hussain
author_facet Ting, Chee-Ming
Seghouane, Abd-Krim
Khalid, Muhammad Usman
Salleh, Sh-Hussain
author_sort Ting, Chee-Ming
title Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
title_short Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
title_full Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
title_fullStr Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
title_full_unstemmed Is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fMRI data?
title_sort is first-order vector autoregressive model optimal for fmri data?
publisher MIT Press Journals
publishDate 2015
url http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/58448/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00765
_version_ 1643654280249344000
score 13.18916