2013 Introducción a la técnica y análisis de resonancia...
Transcript of 2013 Introducción a la técnica y análisis de resonancia...
Introducción a la técnica y análisis de resonancia magnética funcional
Jorge L. Armony
McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
CURSO UAM 20
13
Interacciones neuronales
Kandel, Schwartz & Jessel: Principles of Neural Science
Potencial de acción
CURSO UAM 20
13
Técnicas de neuroimagen funcional: Señal electrodinámica
Electrodos de profundidad
Electroencefalografía (EEG)
Magnetoencefalografía (MEG)
CURSO UAM 20
13
Técnicas de neuroimagen funcional:Señal hemodinámica
CURSO UAM 20
13
These facts seem to us to indicate the existence of an automatic mechanism by which the blood-supply of any part of the cerebral tissue is varied in accordance with the activity of the chemical changes which underlie the functional action of that part.
J Physiol. (1890), 11: 85-158
CURSO UAM 20
13
Resonancia magnética funcional (IRMf/fMRI)
CURSO UAM 20
13
La hemoglobina
- four globin chains- each globin chain contains a heme group- at center of each heme group is an iron atom (Fe)- each heme group can attach an oxygen atom (O2)
Iron
CURSO UAM 20
13
Over ninety years ago, on November 8, 1845, Michael Faraday investigated the
magnetic properties of dried blood and made a note "Must try recent fluid blood."
If he had determined the magnetic susceptibilities of arterial and venous blood, he
would have found them to differ by a large amount (as much as twenty per cent
for completely oxygenated and completely deoxygenated blood); this discovery
without doubt would have excited much interest and would have influenced
appreciably the course of research on blood and hemoglobin.
PNAS (1936), 22: 210-216
CURSO UAM 20
13
Oxy-Hb (four O2) is diamagnetic → no ΔB effectsDeoxy-Hb is paramagnetic → if [deoxy-Hb] ↓ → local ΔB ↓
OxyhemoglobinDiamagnetic
χ ~ -0.3
DeoxyhemoglobinParamagnetic
χ ~ 1.6
B0
oxyHbdeoxyHb
Hemoglobin: Magnetic Properties
CURSO UAM 20
13
B0
oxyHbdeoxyHb
Hemoglobin: Magnetic Properties
CURSO UAM 20
13
neuronal activity ↑
tissue energy demand ↑
Glucose, O2 consumption ↑
blood flow and volume ↑
local dHb content of blood ↓
local dHb-induced magnetic field disturbance ↓
BOLD fMRI signal ↑
neurovascular coupling
fMRI relevantphysiological correlates
Source: B. Pike, MNI(Blood Oxygen Level Dependent signal) CURSO U
AM 2013
Logothetis et al. (2001). Nature 412: 150-157
Relationship between BOLD signal and neural activity
LFP: local field potentialsMUA: multiunit activitySDF: Spike density function
CURSO UAM 20
13
13
First Functional Images
Kwong et al. (1992) PNAS 89: 5675-5679CURSO U
AM 2013
14
Source: Robert Cox’s web slides
Hemodynamic response
CURSO UAM 20
13
1 25
12 2430
Resolution in x (e.g. 4mm)
Matrix in the xy plane (e.g., 64 x 64)
Res
olut
ion
in y
(e.g
. 4m
m)
Resolution in z(e.g. 4mm)
Un volumen:64 x 64 x 30 voxels
6
7 13
18
19
VOXEL(Volumetric Pixel)
4 mm
4 m
m
4 mm
122880 datos!
30 slices
CURSO UAM 20
13
time
Imagenes funcionales
CURSO UAM 20
13
Experimental Design in Neuroimaging
Most studies use a categorical, subtractive design
CATEGORICAL:Two (or more) levels of a given category (one of them usually serves as control)Examples: Happy, Fearful and Neutral Faces, Remembered and Forgotten words, Pictures and Fixation Cross
SUBTRACTIVE:Directly compares two conditions (A-B). Uses the notion of cognitive subtraction(Donders, 1868), which relies on the assumptions of pure insertion and linearity
CURSO UAM 20
13
Cogntitive subtraction = Mathematical Subtraction(principle of pure insertion: Donders, 1868)
>
= + FEARFEAR
– = + –FEARFEAR = FEARFEAR
CURSO UAM 20
13
19
Preprocessing
• Corrects for non-task-related variability in experimental data
• Usually done without consideration ofexperimental design; thus, pre-analysis
• Sometimes called post-processing, in reference to being done after acquisition
• Attempts to remove, rather than model, data variability
Source: http://www.biac.duke.eduCURSO U
AM 2013
20
Preprocessing Steps
• Realignment
• Coregistration
• Slice timing
• Normalization
• Spatial Smoothing
CURSO UAM 20
13
21
Inter-scan movement: RealignmentPeople move, even if they don’t realize!
Need for motion correction
Two steps:
1. Registration: Determine the 6 parameters that describe the rigid-body transformation between each image and a reference image (usu. first in series).
2. Transformation: Resampling each image according to the determined transformation parameters.
CURSO UAM 20
13
22
roll
pitch
yaw
x
y
z
Rigid body movement: 3 translation parameters3 rotation parameters
Same location in the grid
Same location in the brain
Inter-scan movement: Realignment
CURSO UAM 20
13
23
Small movements are corrected well
Sudden movements are more problematic (especially if correlated withexperimental paradigm)
TRASLATION
ROTATION
mm
rad
xy
z
pitch (x)
yaw (y)
roll (z)
Realignment: Registration
CURSO UAM 20
13
24
BEFORE REALIGNMENT AFTER REALIGNMENT
Difference between first and last image in one session
CURSO UAM 20
13
25
Optimisation* Optimisation involves finding some “best”
parameters according to an “objective function”, which is either minimised or maximised
* The “objective function” is often related to a probability based on some model
Value of parameter
Objective function
Most probable solution (global optimum)
Local optimumLocal optimum
Source: John AshburnerCURSO U
AM 2013
26
Objective Functions* Intra-modal
* Mean squared difference (minimise)* Normalised cross correlation (maximise)* Entropy of difference (minimise)
* Inter-modal (or intra-modal)* Mutual information (maximise)* Normalised mutual information (maximise)* Entropy correlation coefficient (maximise)* AIR cost function (minimise)
Source: John AshburnerCURSO U
AM 2013
27
Residual Errors from aligned fMRI* Re-sampling can introduce interpolation errors
* especially tri-linear interpolation
* Gaps between slices can cause aliasing artefacts* Slices are not acquired simultaneously
* rapid movements not accounted for by rigid body model
* Image artefacts may not move according to a rigid body model* image distortion* image dropout* Nyquist ghost
* Functions of the estimated motion parameters can be modelled as confounds in subsequent analyses
Source: John AshburnerCURSO U
AM 2013
28
Unwarping
Estimate movement parameters.
Estimate new distortion fields for each image:
• estimate rate of change of field with respect to the current estimate of movement parameters in pitch and roll.
Estimate reference from mean of all scans.
Unwarp time series.
0B ϕ∂ ∂ 0B θ∂ ∂
Δϕ +Δθ
Andersson et al, 2001Source: John AshburnerCURSO U
AM 2013
29
Realignment: Transformation
Source: John AshburnerCURSO U
AM 2013
30
Inter-subject brain differences: NormalizationPeople’s brains are different!!
CURSO UAM 20
13
31
Normalization
Also useful for reporting coordinates in a standard space (e.g., Talairach and Tournoux)
CURSO UAM 20
13
32
Inter-subject brain differences: After Normalization
CURSO UAM 20
13
33
Spatial Normalisation - Procedure
Non-linear registration
* Minimise mean squared difference from template image(s)
Affine registrationSource: John Ashburner
CURSO UAM 20
13
34
Spatial Normalisation - Affine* The first part is a 12 parameter affine
transform* 3 translations* 3 rotations* 3 zooms* 3 shears
* Fits overall shape and size
* Algorithm simultaneously minimises* Mean-squared difference between template and source image* Squared distance between parameters and their expected values
(regularisation)CURSO UAM 20
13
35
Spatial Normalisation - Non-linearDeformations consist of a linear combination of smooth basis functions
These are the lowest frequencies of a 3D discrete cosine transform (DCT)
Algorithm simultaneously minimises* Mean squared difference between template and
source image * Squared distance between parameters and their
known expectationCURSO UAM 20
13
36
Templateimage
Affine registration.(χ2 = 472.1)
Non-linearregistration
withoutregularisation.(χ2 = 287.3)
Non-linearregistration
usingregularisation.(χ2 = 302.7)
Without regularisation, the non-linear spatial normalisation can introduce unnecessary warps.
Spatial Normalisation - Overfitting
CURSO UAM 20
13
37
CURSO UAM 20
13
38
Why smooth?
• Remove residual inter-subject brain differences
• Allow for the use of Gaussian random field theory (later…)
CURSO UAM 20
13
Crazy little thing called BOLD
Image acquisition by Sarael Alcauter, National Institute of Psychiatry “Ramón de la Fuente”, Mexico City, MexicoCURSO U
AM 2013
CURSO UAM 20
13
Mean (Queen) = 10.77 Mean (Silence) = 10.26
t(118) = 14.17 p = 2 10-27
0.000000000000000000000000002
= +
CURSO UAM 20
13
=
T-map
CURSO UAM 20
13
t-values
t0
t-values
t0
CURSO UAM 20
13
TQA: Temporal Queen Area
CURSO UAM 20
13
Respuestas cerebrales a estímulos visuales
>
Activación en la corteza fusiforme (FFA): Área involucrada en el procesamiento de rostros
Kanwisher et al. (1997)MIT, USA
Trejo & Armony (2008)HGM, México
CURSO UAM 20
13
Respuestas cerebrales a estímulos visuales
>
Activación en la corteza parahipocámpica: Área involucrada en el procesamiento de información espacial
CURSO UAM 20
13
Segregación de la respuesta en corteza temporal ventral a distintostipos de estímulos visuales
CURSO UAM 20
13
– =
Casas – Rostros
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10–
Mapa t
=
Error estándar de la media
Mapa t con umbral
t > 5.2 (p<0.05 FWE)
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
CURSO UAM 20
13
Casas – Rostros
Mapa t
=
Error estándar de la media
Mapa t con umbral
t > 5.2 (p<0.05 FWE)
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Imagen T1(estructural)
Mapa de activaciones(SPM)
+
CURSO UAM 20
13
NEUTRAL
RECORDADA
NUEVA
RECORDADA
OLVIDADA
Efecto subsecuente de memoria
Subsequently Remembered > Subsequently Forgotten
Sergerie, Lepage & Armony (2005). NeuroimageCURSO U
AM 2013
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
Fear Happy Neutral
R DLPFC (48 22 16)
-0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
Fear Happy Neutral
L DLPFC (-34 32 12)
RL
EMOTIONAL
RL
NEUTRAL
Efecto del valor emocional en la memoria
Sergerie, Lepage & Armony (2005). NeuroimageCURSO U
AM 2013
What else can we do?
• Cleaner data (e.g., high-pass filtering, scaling)
• More sophisticated averaging (modeling)
• Choose a good threshold
CURSO UAM 20
13
Modeling the expected response
Original:ON-OFF = 13.02, t(80) = 8.6, p = 2 10-13
Shifted blocks:ON-OFF = 12.45, t(80) = 17.7, p = 10-29CURSO U
AM 2013
Modeling the expected response
ASSUMPTIONS:
Experimental Paradigm• The response is solely determined by two conditions: the ON and OFF
blocks
Brain Physiology• There is a delay of about 6 sec between onset/offset of the block and the
observed signal
Brain-Design Interactions• The response is the same within a given block• The response is the same for all blocks belonging to the same condition
CURSO UAM 20
13
Modeling the expected response
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
CURSO UAM 20
13
A better model for the HRF
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Convolve with a model of hrf
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
CURSO UAM 20
13
Modeling the data: The General Linear Model
= β +
y x εCURSO U
AM 2013
yi = xi β + εi
data model
errorparameter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Given by the
scanner
You build it
The weight of the model
Part of the data not accounted by the model
BEFORE
DURING
AFTER
NEVER
Who’s who in the GLM
CURSO UAM 20
13
Fitting the model to the data
CURSO UAM 20
13
In search of a criterion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Try to minimize:
∑(yi – Mi)2Mi
yi
CURSO UAM 20
13
Height
Sum
of s
quar
es
CURSO UAM 20
13
Height
Sum
of s
quar
es
Choosing a height (parameter) of 8 minimizes the “distance” between the data and the model.
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES (OLS) SOLUTION
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
CURSO UAM 20
13
CURSO UAM 20
13
A bigger (and better) model
= β1 +
y x1 ε
β2
x2
β3
x3
+ +
= β1 + β2 β3+ +CURSO U
AM 2013
System of Linear EquationsNow we are left with a SLE of N independent equations and p unknownsThree possibilities:
1. N = pOnly one solution X = A-1b
2. N < pInfinite number of solutions (underdetermined system)
3. N > pNo solution (overdetermined system)
CURSO UAM 20
13
εβ += Xy
∑=
N
tt
1
2ε̂
Ordinary Least Squares Estimator
Given
We try to find β̂ (an estimate of the true parameters β )
such that is minimal (as small as possible)
βε ˆˆ Xy −= (residuals)
CURSO UAM 20
13
In matrix form…
=
β1
+
y X ε
β2
β3
+β= CURSO U
AM 2013
εβ += Xy
=
β
ε+X
N: number of scansp: number of regressors (explanatory variables)
N: number of scansp: number of regressors (explanatory variables)
y
General Linear Model (GLM)
N N N
1 11p
p
CURSO UAM 20
13
,εβ += XyGiven
If X was a number, then yXinvyXXy )(ˆ 1 === −β
But X is a matrix, and it typically has no inverse (it is not square)
β̂Xy =we look for
Looking for a solution…
y1 = x11β1+x12 β 2+…+x1p βp
y2 = x21β1+x22 β 2+…+x2p βp
…
yN = xN1β1+xN2 β 2+…+xNpβp
More equations (scans) than unknowns (conditions)Overdetermined System
CURSO UAM 20
13
Settling for a pseudo-solution…
yXXXyXpinv TT 1)()(ˆ −==β
So, we use the pseudo-inverse (we choose the Moore-Penrose version)
( ) TT XXXXpinv 1)( −=
But… this pseudo-solution is the OLS solution!
CURSO UAM 20
13
ye
Design space defined by X
x1
x2
PIRRye
−==
β̂ˆ Xy =
yXXX TT 1)(ˆ −=β
TT XXXXPPyy
1)(
ˆ−=
=
Residual forming matrix R
Projection matrix P
OLS estimates
A Geometric Perspective
Slide from Klaas StephanCURSO U
AM 2013
Basic Model
Linear Modulation(habituation)
Other Modulation(e.g., performance, physio)
Independent Blocks
Parametric Modeling
Categorical Modeling
CURSO UAM 20
13
Event-related Designs
CURSO UAM 20
13
Event-related Designs
CURSO UAM 20
13
CURSO UAM 20
13
GLM: The L stands for Linear
It assumes that the superposition principle holds
A BC D
A+C B+DIf thenCURSO UAM 20
13
GLM: And the M stands for Model
CURSO UAM 20
13
Introducing the Temporal Derivative
CURSO UAM 20
13
CURSO UAM 20
13
hrf alone hrf + d(hrf)/dt
CURSO UAM 20
13
HRF, temporal derivative and dispersion Gamma functions
Fourier set (sines and cosines)
Basis Functions
CURSO UAM 20
13
Basis Functions: Choosing the Right Model
Good: Easy to analyze and interpret in terms of hemodynamic activity
Bad: May fail to capture real responses that do not fit the assumed behaviour
Few, model-based functions (e.g., synthetic HRF)
Good: No a priori assumptions about the shape of the response. Can capture unexpected responses (e.g., longer delay/duration)
Bad: Difficult to interpret physiologically. They may capture non-hemodynamic responses (noise, artifacts)
Many, general basis functions (e.g., Fourier set)
All models are wrong, but some are useful – George Box
CURSO UAM 20
13
Statistical Inference
)ˆ(
ˆ
ββ
stdt =
Where in the brain is my experimental parameter (β ) significantly bigger than zero?
pNdf −=
t-map
= = p-values
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
–Why don't you say at once “it’s a miracle”?–Because it may be only chance.
F. Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
CURSO UAM 20
13
Statistical Inference
Where in the brain is one experimental parameter (β1 ) significantly bigger than another one (β2 ) ?
Contrast: Linear combination of parameters
Hypothesis: β1 - β2 > 0
1∗β1 + (-1)∗β2
β1 > β2
c = [1 -1] c = [1 -1 0 0] if we included mean and linear trend in the model
)ˆ(
ˆ
ββcstd
ct =
= [1 -1]β1
β2
CURSO UAM 20
13
My p-value is smaller than yours…
If P is between .1 and .9 there is certainly no reason to suspect the hypothesis tested. If it is below .02 it is strongly indicated that the hypothesis fails to account for the whole of the facts. We shall not often be astray if we draw a conventional line at .05.
R. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1925)
CURSO UAM 20
13
Multiple comparisons across the brainThere are ~100,000 voxels in the brain!!
• No correction (p < 0.05 uncorrected)Good: Easy, minimize Type II errorsBad: Too many false positives (Type I errors) 5% of 100,000 = 5,000 voxels!
• Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05/100,000 = 0.0000005)Good: Easy, minimize Type I errorsBad: Too stringent (worst-case scenario). Too many Type II errors
• Gaussian random field theory (spatial smoothing)Good: Works well for spatially-correlated data. Reasonable resultsBad: Still fairly stringent. Removes some specificity (due to smoothing)
• False discovery rate (FDR)Good: Fewer Type II errors while still controlling for Type I errorsBad: Significance of a voxel depends on significance of other voxels
• “Pseudo-Bonferroni” correction (p < 0.001)Good: Somewhere between 0.05 uncorrected and 0.05 correctedBad: Completely arbitraryCURSO U
AM 2013