↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Optimizing Experimental Design for Comparing Models of Brain Function

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Optimizing Experimental Design for Comparing Models of Brain Function
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Daunizeau, Kerstin Preuschoff, Karl Friston, Klaas Stephan

Abstract

This article presents the first attempt to formalize the optimization of experimental design with the aim of comparing models of brain function based on neuroimaging data. We demonstrate our approach in the context of Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM), which relates experimental manipulations to observed network dynamics (via hidden neuronal states) and provides an inference framework for selecting among candidate models. Here, we show how to optimize the sensitivity of model selection by choosing among experimental designs according to their respective model selection accuracy. Using Bayesian decision theory, we (i) derive the Laplace-Chernoff risk for model selection, (ii) disclose its relationship with classical design optimality criteria and (iii) assess its sensitivity to basic modelling assumptions. We then evaluate the approach when identifying brain networks using DCM. Monte-Carlo simulations and empirical analyses of fMRI data from a simple bimanual motor task in humans serve to demonstrate the relationship between network identification and the optimal experimental design. For example, we show that deciding whether there is a feedback connection requires shorter epoch durations, relative to asking whether there is experimentally induced change in a connection that is known to be present. Finally, we discuss limitations and potential extensions of this work.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
Germany 3 1%
Japan 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 222 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 28%
Researcher 54 22%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 46 19%
Unknown 19 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 61 25%
Neuroscience 50 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 7%
Engineering 15 6%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 29 12%