[FieldTrip] LCMV giving conflicting results vs SAM and DICS

[Eelke Spaak]

Hi Charidimos,

If I understand you correctly, you specified cfg.keeptrials = 'no' in
the calls to ft_timelockanalysis prior to the *first* call of
ft_sourceanalysis, right? Could you try what happens when you specify
it in ft_timelockanalysis prior to the second call to
ft_sourceanalysis (so the step where the precomputed filter is
applied)?

Thanks,
Eelke

On 25 October 2013 01:06, Charidimos Tzagarakis <haristz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eelke,
> Thank you for looking into this!
> The piece of code I commented out is indeed [790:836] (changing line 784
> accordingly or alternatively adding a copy of 785-789 after 790).
> I did try running ft_timelockanalysis with keeptrials='no' for all 3 calls
> and that resulted in the same behaviour as before for LCMV (ie not the
> "correct" one). I also tried it   setting keeptrials='no' in
> ft_sourceanalysis at the same time (ie keeptrials='no' for both
> ft_timelockanalysis and ft_sourceanalysis) which had the same outcome (I
> actually had run these tests before posting but wanted to 2ble check).
> I may however be confused here because there are some other possible
> combinations with keeptrials since for each subject there is a total of 6
> calls to functions that accept it as an input and the filter is estimated
> with only 2 of them.
> Do let me know if there is another combination I should run and I will do
> that.
> Best,
> Haris
>
> Charidimos [Haris] Tzagarakis MD, PhD, MRCPsych
> University of Minnesota Dept of Neuroscience and Brain Sciences Center
>
>
> On 24 October 2013 03:08, Eelke Spaak <eelke.spaak at donders.ru.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charidimos,
>>
>> Thanks for your elaborate e-mail. We discussed this issue in
>> yesterday's FieldTrip meeting. It is very reasonable that you expect
>> the three methods to produce the same results, and the code/interface
>> indeed suggests that this would be the case. In other words, we need
>> to clean up this part of the code to produce consistent results;
>> however, this might take a while.
>>
>> We believe the discrepancy is caused by the fact that you compute the
>> covariance while specifying cfg.keeptrials = 'yes', which is
>> unnecessary while computing the filter. This results in a covariance
>> matrix with dimensions trial X channel X channel, which then is
>> subsequently averaged over trials during ft_sourceanalysis. Likely the
>> filter is still in fact computed on the averaged covariance, as it
>> should be. However, the subsequent projection of data through the
>> filter will not first average the covariance, and will in essence only
>> project the first trial through the filter. (This is because the dip{}
>> fields will be struct arrays of dimension nTrial X 1, and in an
>> assignment a(1).b = 2; a(2).b = 3; x = a; then x will be 2, so
>> everything but the first element of a struct array is ignored in an
>> assignment statement.)
>>
>> Could you try to compute the covariance with cfg.keeptrials = 'no' and
>> then run LCMV again? This will still compute the covariance on the raw
>> traces, not on the average. If our hunch is right, you should get the
>> correct results then.
>>
>> As said, this is indeed messy and unclear, our apologies for that.
>>
>> Finally, could you tell us what part of the code you commented out to
>> make the results consistent? We suspect it will be between lines 790
>> and 835, but it would be helpful to know for sure.
>>
>> Best,
>> Eelke
>>
>>
>> On 23 October 2013 21:43, Charidimos Tzagarakis <haristz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Don,
>> > Thanks for your reply. I do agree that some of these beamformers
>> > are probably better suited than others to study beta desynchronisation,
>> > or
>> > generally questions in the frequency domain. I in fact started from
>> > DICS.
>> > The reason I looked at LCMV and SAM is to be sure that I get consistent
>> > results (and also because my experiment can also address some additional
>> > time domain questions, so I wanted to see what happens when my data goes
>> > from one to the other). I therefore tried to set them up so I that the
>> > results from all 3 are similar. So you are correct in pointing out that
>> > my
>> > question is why SAM and LCMV produce different results. Based on their
>> > description within the fieldtrip website and mailing list (if I have
>> > interpreted these correctly) they should be treating the covariance
>> > matrix
>> > in the same way (to get a true evoked response covariance matrix you
>> > would
>> > normally need the extra call to ft_timelockanalysis that I show at the
>> > last
>> > piece of code in my post). Also , if the covariance matrix is indeed the
>> > issue, it seems that the change in how it is treated in the
>> > ft_sourceanalysis code (based on the "hack" I described) is unique to
>> > LCMV
>> > (none of the other beamformer options share that piece of code) and is
>> > active only when LCMV is given a precomputed filter which is (I think)
>> > unusual.
>> > Hence my question!
>> > Best,
>> > Haris
>> >
>> > Charidimos [Haris] Tzagarakis MD, PhD, MRCPsych
>> > University of Minnesota Dept of Neuroscience and Brain Sciences Center
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 23 October 2013 13:31, Rojas, Don <Don.Rojas at ucdenver.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Haris,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry - In my last post, I mistakenly put DICS and the Fieldtrip
>> >> implementation of SAM into the same frequency domain category. In
>> >> Fieldtrip,
>> >> SAM is a time-domain technique and is not the same as the
>> >> implementation of
>> >> SAM that has been used in the published literature for beta ERD. So,
>> >> are you
>> >> then wondering why the two time-domain approaches produce differing
>> >> results?
>> >> That probably does depend on how the covariance matrix is calculated.
>> >> Although I still think it is a bad idea to use a time-domain beamformer
>> >> on
>> >> motor beta ERD/ERS.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Don
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> fieldtrip mailing list
>> >> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>> >> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > fieldtrip mailing list
>> > fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>> > http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>> _______________________________________________
>> fieldtrip mailing list
>> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip