4.7 Article

A Monte Carlo method for locally multivariate brain mapping

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 508-516

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [3548]
  2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital [ALFGBG 3161]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Locally multivariate approaches to functional brain mapping offer a highly appealing complement to conventional statistics, but require restrictive region-of-interest hypotheses, or, in exhaustive search forms (such as the searchlight algorithm; Kriegeskorte et al., 2006), are excessively computer intensive. We therefore propose a non-restrictive, comparatively fast yet highly sensitive method based on Monte Carlo approximation principles where locally multivariate maps are computed by averaging across voxelwise condition-discriminative information obtained from repeated stochastic sampling of fixed-size search volumes. On simulated data containing discriminative regions of varying size and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the Monte Carlo method reduced the required computer resources by as much as 75% compared to the searchlight with no reduction in mapping performance. Notably, the Monte Carlo mapping approach not only outperformed the general linear method (GLM), but also produced higher discriminative voxel detection scores than the searchlight irrespective of classifier (linear or nonlinear support vector machine), discriminative region size or CNR. The improved performance was explained by the information-average procedure, and the Monte Carlo approach yielded mapping sensitivities of a few percent lower than an information-average exhaustive search. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of the algorithm on whole-brain, multi-subject functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from a tactile study, revealing that the central representation of gentle touch is spatially distributed in somatosensory, insular and visual regions. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据