[FieldTrip] calculating behavioural-power correlation -- follow-up questions
Arjen Stolk
a.stolk8 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 06:01:51 CEST 2015
Hi Xiaoming, Martin,
Coming back about this issue, I have filed a bug report:
http://bugzilla.fieldtriptoolbox.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2992
In short, creating a randomization distribution using the permutation
method is prone to systematic bias across conditions, as illustrated in our
previous email exchanges. One workaround is to use the bootstrapping method
(cfg.resampling = 'bootstrap'), or to explicitly remove the systematic
bias, e.g by normalizing the data in each condition separately prior to
doing statistical testing.
I have added these important considerations to the documentation of
ft_statfun_correlationT, built in a warning message, and created a latent
function that explicitly tests for this issue (to prevent it to re-occur
with future code changes). Thank you for your acuteness and contributions.
Yours,
Arjen
2015-10-21 15:33 GMT-07:00 Arjen Stolk <a.stolk8 at gmail.com>:
> Thanks for clarifying, Xiaoming.
>
> It seems indeed that a systematic offset (in averages) across the two
> sample populations biases the randomization distribution. I'd need to sort
> this out, but schematically would expect it to look as follow:
>
> normal:
> ~1000 ~1000 ~1000 ~1000
> ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1
> corr = ~0
>
> post shuffling:
> ~1000 ~1 ~1000 ~1000
> ~1 ~1000 ~1 ~1
> corr = negative, that is an anti-correlation
>
> This implies a bootstrapping approach is more correct for testing for
> statistical significance of a correlation (in case of a systematic offset
> across conditions).
>
> Yours,
> Arjen
>
> 2015-10-21 14:28 GMT-07:00 Xiaoming Du <XDu at mprc.umaryland.edu>:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks Martin to make it more clear. However, my understanding is that
>> the problem is caused by different means of permutation for paired-sample t
>> test and correlation. I am very curious how you solve the problem by
>> customizing statfun. Do you mind sending me a copy of that? I will really
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Hi Arjen,
>>
>> I think the 'ft_statfun_correlationT' works fine. Using the code in your
>> previous email, the correlation result (stat.rho) is same as using MATLAB
>> function 'corr' with Spearman method. However, In your code, the design
>> matrix for correlation is defined in the same way as for within-UO design
>> (e.g., paired-sample t test). I think Martin's and my concern is that the
>> permutation method for correlation and within-UO design (e.g.,
>> paired-sample t test) should be different.
>>
>> For example, there are 10 subjects (patients). Each of them finished a
>> task before (A) and after (B) the treatment . Based on the different null
>> hypothesis, the permutation methods for paired-sample t test and
>> correlation should be different. For paired-sample t test (or within-UO
>> design), the null hypothesis is that there is no different before or after
>> the treatment. In other words, for each subjects, switch the results before
>> and after treatment won't matter. This is exactly how the permutations are
>> done when cfg.design is defined as in your code . On the other hand, the
>> null hypothesis for correlation is that: there is no relationship between
>> the results before and after treatment. Therefore, permutation should be
>> done on after-treatment results *among subjects* while keep
>> before-treatment results same (or permute before-treatment and keep
>> after-treatment). In terms of permutation, correlation and paired-sample t
>> test (within-UO design) seems treated equally in fieldtrip.
>>
>> Original matrix permutation for
>> paired t test permutation for correlation
>>
>> before (A) after (B) before
>> (A) after (B) before (A)
>> after (B)
>> subj1 A1 B1 subj1
>> A1 B1 subj1 A1 B2
>> subj2 A2 B2 subj2
>> B2 A2 subj2 A2 B4
>> subj3 A3 B3 subj3
>> B3 A3 subj3 A3 B3
>> subj4 A4 B4 subj4
>> A4 B4 subj4 A4 B1
>> subj5 A5 B5 subj5
>> A5 B5 subj5 A5 B10
>> subj6 A6 B6 subj6
>> B6 A6 subj6 A6 B8
>> subj7 A7 B7 subj7
>> B7 A7 subj7 A7 B9
>> subj8 A8 B8 subj8
>> A8 B8 subj8 A8 B6
>> subj9 A9 B9 subj9
>> B9 A9 subj9 A9 B5
>> subj10 A10 B10 subj10
>> A10 B10 subj10 A10 B7
>>
>> As follows, I made minor changes in your previous code to show this
>> issue.
>> data_brain ranges from 0 to 1;
>> data_behav ranges from 1000 to 1001;
>> There is no relationship between data_brain and data_behav, because the
>> values are randomly assigned to them.
>> This is the results I got by using the code below:
>>
>> stat =
>>
>> prob: 9.9900e-04
>> cirange: 0.0020
>> mask: 1
>> stat: 0.2941
>> ref: -10.7655
>> rho: 0.0297
>> dimord: 'chan_time'
>> label: {'1'}
>> time: 1
>> cfg: [1x1 struct]
>>
>> stat.rho (0.0297) is the same as using 'corr' with Spearman option in
>> matlab; However, stat.prob obtained by using permutation test is so
>> small. The reason (I guess) are 1, two-tail test was used. 2, the rho
>> distribution of permutation is biased to negative direction (meaning the
>> rho after each permutation was biased to strong negative correlation. e.g.,
>> -0.8 etc ), so the real rho fell into the 5% range of rho distribution of
>> permutations. In other words, real rho (0.0297) is smaller (or larger) than
>> almost all rho from permutation, so that stat.prob is very small
>> (0.000999).
>>
>> Please let me know if this makes sense to you or if I misunderstood
>> anything.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Xiaoming
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> data_brain = [];
>>
>> data_behav = [];
>>
>> for j=1:100
>>
>> data_brain{j}.avg = rand; % increasing
>>
>> data_brain{j}.dimord = 'chan_time';
>>
>> data_brain{j}.time = 1;
>>
>> data_brain{j}.label = {'1'};
>>
>>
>> data_behav{j} = data_brain{j};
>>
>> data_behav{j}.avg = rand + 1000; % add scaling difference
>>
>> end
>>
>>
>> % compute statistics with correlationT
>>
>> cfg = [];
>>
>> cfg.method = 'montecarlo';
>>
>> cfg.statistic = 'ft_statfun_correlationT';
>>
>> cfg.numrandomization = 1000;
>>
>> n1 = 100; % n1 is the number of subjects
>>
>> design = zeros(2, n1 * 2);
>>
>> design(1,1:n1) = 1;
>>
>> design(1,(n1 + 1):(n1 * 2)) = 2;
>>
>> design(2, :) = [1:n1 1:n1];
>>
>> cfg.design = design;
>>
>>
>> cfg.ivar = 1;
>>
>> cfg.uvar = 2;
>>
>> stat = ft_timelockstatistics(cfg, data_brain{:}, data_behav{:});
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> Arjen Stolk <a.stolk8 at gmail.com> 10/21/2015 2:22 PM >>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for thinking along. I've briefly tried to replicate/simplify the
>> situation depicted by you using the code below. It works as I would expect,
>> no matter whether one variable is scaled differently. But perhaps I'm not
>> fully capturing the issue, and something still goes awry. This is a
>> possibility because ft_statfun_correlationT has only recently been
>> implemented for a specific case, and was never really tested within
>> different situations (hence it's not well-documented on the wiki). Do you
>> think you could use this example code to replicate the situation you are
>> experiencing?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Arjen
>>
>> % simulate simple multiple subjects timelock structures
>>
>> data_brain = [];
>>
>> data_behav = [];
>>
>> for j=1:10
>>
>> data_brain{j}.avg = j; % increasing
>>
>> data_brain{j}.dimord = 'chan_time';
>>
>> data_brain{j}.time = 1;
>>
>> data_brain{j}.label = {'1'};
>>
>> data_behav{j} = data_brain{j};
>>
>> data_behav{j}.avg = data_brain{j}.avg*-1000+50; % add scaling difference
>>
>> end
>>
>> % compute statistics with correlationT
>>
>> cfg = [];
>>
>> cfg.method = 'montecarlo';
>>
>> cfg.statistic = 'ft_statfun_correlationT';
>>
>> cfg.numrandomization = 100;
>>
>> n1 = 10; % n1 is the number of subjects
>>
>> design = zeros(2, n1 * 2);
>>
>> design(1,1:n1) = 1;
>>
>> design(1,(n1 + 1):(n1 * 2)) = 2;
>>
>> design(2, :) = [1:n1 1:n1];
>>
>> cfg.design = design;
>>
>> cfg.ivar = 1;
>>
>> cfg.uvar = 2;
>>
>> stat = ft_timelockstatistics(cfg, data_brain{:}, data_behav{:});
>>
>> assert(isequal(stat.rho, -1));
>>
>> 2015-10-21 10:54 GMT-07:00 Krebber, Martin <martin.krebber at charite.de>:
>>
>>> Hi Xiaoming, hi Arjen,
>>>
>>> I've been encountering the same problem. I believe Xiaoming is right
>>> when he points out that the permutaion step shuffles data across conditions
>>> and that this introduces a negative bias in the distribution. I found the
>>> same thing when I correlated RT data with TFRs (absolute power). My
>>> distribution was shifted strongly to the left and, thus, not a single
>>> negative cluster was significant, but every positive one was.
>>>
>>> Xiaomings explanation made a lot of sense to me when I thought about it
>>> graphically: Imagine correlating two data vectors, one (x) ranging between
>>> .5 and1, the other (y) between 50 and and 100. When plotting this, one gets
>>> a cloud of dots on the upper left corner of the diagram. When you then
>>> switch the variable assignment of half of the data points (which is what
>>> the permutation step seems to do), these dots will now be be shifted to the
>>> lower right corner of the diagram. So no matter what the correlation in the
>>> original data, chances are that (given different scaling) after permutaion,
>>> you get a negative correlation.
>>>
>>> I am not 100% sure about this, so please let me know if I made a mistake.
>>>
>>> What I tried instead of the 'ft_statfun_correlationT' was using a custom
>>> made statfun in which I pass the RTs via the design matrix. With this, my
>>> results looked much better. I am not sure, but I guess this is because
>>> there is no shuffling between the two variables in this case.
>>>
>>> I would really like to know, what is the right way of doing this using
>>> just the FieldTrip functions. Is there a way to permute data within
>>> variables? I tried cfg.resampling = 'bootstrap', but this is not a
>>> permutation, as far as I know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *Von:* fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl [fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl]"
>>> im Auftrag von "Arjen Stolk [a.stolk8 at gmail.com]
>>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 08:03
>>> *An:* FieldTrip discussion list
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [FieldTrip] calculating behavioural-power correlation --
>>> follow-up questions
>>>
>>> Hey Xiaoming,
>>>
>>> It's still pretty hard, for me, to guess on basis of that matlab output
>>> what is going on here and what you mean with 'shuffling design matrices',
>>> and how that shuffling 'biases the cluster distribution'. As you mention
>>> yourself, it could be due to various reasons, and you're open to
>>> suggestions and increasing your understanding. I'd therefore suggest to try
>>> to funnel the number of potential explanations by simulating what you're
>>> doing (using input data for which you know how it should behave), after
>>> you've read more about what the design matrix and monte carlo statistics
>>> are supposed to do. Perhaps the statistics section at the bottom of this
>>> page provides a good starting point:
>>> http://www.fieldtriptoolbox.org/walkthrough
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>> Arjen
>>>
>>> 2015-10-19 15:56 GMT-07:00 Xiaoming Du <XDu at mprc.umaryland.edu>:
>>>
>>>> For example, our power values ranged from 1 to 3 (after log transform);
>>>> my behavioral data ranged from 20 to 90;
>>>> by using above mentioned script, there are 14 negative clusters were
>>>> reported in variable stat.
>>>> stat =
>>>> prob: [30x50 double]
>>>> posclusters: []
>>>> posclusterslabelmat: [30x50 double]
>>>> posdistribution: [1x1000 double]
>>>> negclusters: [1x14 struct]
>>>> negclusterslabelmat: [30x50 double]
>>>> negdistribution: [1x1000 double]
>>>> cirange: [30x50 double]
>>>> mask: [30x50 logical]
>>>> stat: [30x50 double]
>>>> ref: [30x50 double]
>>>> rho: [30x50 double]
>>>> dimord: 'chan_freq'
>>>> freq: [1x50 double]
>>>> label: {30x1 cell}
>>>> time: 2.5000
>>>> cfg: [1x1 struct]
>>>> However, the p values of those clusters (i.e., stat.negclusters.prob)
>>>> are all ones. The smallest value in stat.negdistribution is way larger than
>>>> the largest negative cluster t-sum. This could be real. However, it is more
>>>> likely due to the shuffle between power and behavioral group. For example,
>>>> design matrix [1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2; 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4] was shuffled to [1 2 2 1 2
>>>> 2 1 1; 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4]. After each permutation, for some subjects, their
>>>> power data was labeled as behavioral data and vice versa. Because of the
>>>> scale difference between power and behavioral data, large negative
>>>> correlations were generated by permutation. This further biased the cluster
>>>> distribution.
>>>> My limited understanding is that, for correlation, each permutation
>>>> should fix cfg.ivar and only shuffle half of the cfg.uvar. For example,
>>>> permute design matrix [1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2; 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4] to [1 1 1 1 2 2 2;
>>>> 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 1]. THerefore, after permutation, one subject's power data
>>>> corresponds to another subject's behavioral data.
>>>> I am not good at statistics. It will be really appreciated if you have
>>>> any suggestions or comments.
>>>> Xiaoming
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>> Arjen Stolk <a.stolk8 at gmail.com> 10/19/2015 6:01 PM >>>
>>>> Hey Xiaoming,
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if I understand, but shouldn't the directions of the
>>>> correlations be independent of the scaling of the two variables? Looking at
>>>> the code of ft_statfun_correlationT it doesn't seem the conversion from
>>>> correlation to T value (tstat = rho*(sqrt(max(nunits)-2))/sqrt((1-rho^2)))
>>>> would result in a direction change either. Perhaps you could try to first
>>>> manually calculate a correlation between signal power and behavioral power,
>>>> and see whether anything is behaving unexpectedly?
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Arjen
>>>>
>>>> 2015-10-19 14:25 GMT-07:00 Xiaoming Du <XDu at mprc.umaryland.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear FieldTrip users,
>>>>> This is Xiaoming from University of Maryland Baltimore. My current
>>>>> project requires to calculate behavioral-power correlation across subjects.
>>>>> Similar topic was discussed here early this year.
>>>>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/2015-February/008953.html
>>>>> According to the suggestions in above mentioned thread, I duplicate my
>>>>> power dataset and replace the power values at each time-frequency point
>>>>> with behavioral data. Therefore, those two datasets have same structure and
>>>>> dimension. I used the following script to test if there are significant
>>>>> clusters of correlations.
>>>>> cfg = [];
>>>>> cfg.parameter = 'powspctrm';
>>>>> cfg.method = 'montecarlo';
>>>>> cfg.statistic = 'ft_statfun_correlationT';
>>>>> ...
>>>>> etc
>>>>> ...
>>>>> design = zeros(2, n1 * 2); % n1 is the number of subjects.
>>>>> design(1,1:n1) = 1;
>>>>> design(1,(n1 + 1):(n1 * 2)) = 2;
>>>>> design(2, :) = [[1:n1 ] [1 : n1]];
>>>>> cfg.design = design;
>>>>>
>>>>> cfg.ivar = 1;
>>>>> cfg.uvar = 2;
>>>>> stat = ft_freqstatistics(cfg, dataBeh{:}, dataDX1{:});
>>>>> However, it seems when each time the design matrix is permuted,
>>>>> FieldTrip is using the same method as for 'ft_statfun_depsamplesT', meaning
>>>>> cfg.uvar remains the same while cfg.ivar (1 or 2) is randomly assigned to
>>>>> each subject in design matrix. Although I confirmed this by uncommenting
>>>>> line 313 (i.e., tmpdesign = design(:,resample(i,:))) in
>>>>> ft_statistics_montecarlo.m which allows to display the permuted design
>>>>> matrix in command line, please correct me if this is not the case.
>>>>> In my mind, this kind of permutation will cause trouble when dealing
>>>>> with correlation. For example, in my case, the behavioral data and power
>>>>> data have different scales. The power data are much larger than behavioral
>>>>> data in general. When assigning behavioral data into power group or vice
>>>>> versa, it will induce huge negative correlations between power and
>>>>> behavioral measurement. Therefore, no negative clusters will survive from
>>>>> permutation test.
>>>>> Please let me know if I have mis-understanding or if I did anything
>>>>> wrong. Any suggestions will be highly appreciated!
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Xiaoming
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> fieldtrip mailing list
>>>>> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
>>>>> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20151021/16789250/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the fieldtrip
mailing list