# [FieldTrip] Statistical test of robustness of a graph measure based on reduced amount of nodes

Matt Gerhold matt.gerhold at gmail.com
Wed Oct 12 18:00:59 CEST 2016

```Hi Son,

Without directly referring to the Achard paper:

In one sentence, how do you define the hub disruption index in terms of
human brain function?

In one sentence, how does the single value represent the definition you
have provided in the previous sentence?

If you have the right answers to these two simple questions, then the
manner in which the null is defined computationally should be intuitive to
you.

Regards,

Matthew

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ta Dinh, Son <son.ta.dinh at tum.de> wrote:

> Hey Matthew,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the answer, but the question is exactly how to actually build a
> representative null distribution. As the calculation using all (64)
> electrodes is deterministic, it can’t really be used to create a
> distribution, it would just be a vector of 1000 x 1 exact same value.
>
> The graph measure is called hub disruption index and was introduced here:
> Achard, S., et al. (2012). "Hubs of brain functional networks are radically
> reorganized in comatose patients." PNAS.
>
> To put it in a nutshell, it compares a subject against a group of
> controls, thereby giving a single value for every subject (in comparison to
> the control group).
>
>
>
> I hope this has cleared up the context a bit.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Son
>
>
>
> Son Ta Dinh, M.Sc.
>
> PhD student in Human Pain Research
>
> Klinikum rechts der Isar
>
> Technische Universität München
> Munich, Germany
> Phone: +49 89 4140 7664
> http://www.painlabmunich.de/
>
>
>
> *Von:* Nickel, Moritz
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2016 16:37
> *An:* Ta Dinh, Son <son.ta.dinh at tum.de>
> *Betreff:* Fwd: [FieldTrip] Statistical test of robustness of a graph
> measure based on reduced amount of nodes
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Matt Gerhold* <matt.gerhold at gmail.com>
> Date: 2016-10-05 13:31 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Re: [FieldTrip] Statistical test of robustness of a graph measure
> based on reduced amount of nodes
> To: FieldTrip discussion list <fieldtrip at science.ru.nl>
>
> Hi Son,
>
> What you are explaining sounds like resampling to build a distribution
> under the null hypothesis. You would need to make sure that your random
> draws are representative in some way of an instance where the test
> statistic (graph theoretic measure) is truly zero, i.e. representative of
> the null hypothesis. There is no info on your measure, so one can't comment
> any further on how one would achieve this.
>
> Once you have the bootstrapped distribution you compute the proportion of
> values above the test statistic and those below the test statistic--the
> test statistic is the measure you got from the actual sample, not the
> bootstrapped distribution.
>
> Then it depends whether you use a two-tail or one-tail test and the
> direction of the hypothesized effect: for a one-tail test you could
> potentially take the proportion of the distribution above equal to the test
> statistic, that would be your p-value. For two tailed-tests take the min
> value of the two-proportions as your p-value and remember to divide alpha
> by 2 to test for significance.
>
> That, in a nutshell, is a simple approach; however, there are other ways
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Ta Dinh, Son <son.ta.dinh at tum.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Fieldtrippers,
>
>
>
> the general problem we are facing is one of statistics. In particular, we
> are trying to test the robustness of a graph measure when reducing the
> amount of nodes it is computed with. In our case, we use the EEG electrodes
> as nodes.
>
>
>
> We are trying to find out whether a graph measure differs significantly
> from zero over a group of subjects. The exact calculation of the measure is
> rather complicated to explain, suffice it to say that every subject has
> exactly one scalar value in the end. Computation of this measure using 64
> electrodes is straightforward and we can easily calculate a p-value and/or
> a confidence interval.
>
> When we calculate based on only 32 electrodes however, we draw 32
> electrodes randomly. Therefore, we need to repeat this computation many
> times (let’s say 1000 times). So we then get [1000 x number of subjects]
> values, or 1000 p-values/confidence intervals.
>
> How do we statistically test whether the measure is robustly different
> from 0? Is it too naive to simply assume that if the confidence interval
> does not contain 0 in at least 950 of the 1000 computations then it is
> robustly different from 0?
>
>
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Son
>
>
>
> Son Ta Dinh, M.Sc.
>
> PhD student in Human Pain Research
>
> Klinikum rechts der Isar
>
> Technische Universität München
> Munich, Germany
> Phone: +49 89 4140 7664
> http://www.painlabmunich.de/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> https://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> https://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20161012/61c1b633/attachment-0002.html>
```