Article

Bayesian model selection for group studies

Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
NeuroImage (Impact Factor: 6.13). 04/2009; 46(4):1004-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bayesian model selection (BMS) is a powerful method for determining the most likely among a set of competing hypotheses about the mechanisms that generated observed data. BMS has recently found widespread application in neuroimaging, particularly in the context of dynamic causal modelling (DCM). However, so far, combining BMS results from several subjects has relied on simple (fixed effects) metrics, e.g. the group Bayes factor (GBF), that do not account for group heterogeneity or outliers. In this paper, we compare the GBF with two random effects methods for BMS at the between-subject or group level. These methods provide inference on model-space using a classical and Bayesian perspective respectively. First, a classical (frequentist) approach uses the log model evidence as a subject-specific summary statistic. This enables one to use analysis of variance to test for differences in log-evidences over models, relative to inter-subject differences. We then consider the same problem in Bayesian terms and describe a novel hierarchical model, which is optimised to furnish a probability density on the models themselves. This new variational Bayes method rests on treating the model as a random variable and estimating the parameters of a Dirichlet distribution which describes the probabilities for all models considered. These probabilities then define a multinomial distribution over model space, allowing one to compute how likely it is that a specific model generated the data of a randomly chosen subject as well as the exceedance probability of one model being more likely than any other model. Using empirical and synthetic data, we show that optimising a conditional density of the model probabilities, given the log-evidences for each model over subjects, is more informative and appropriate than both the GBF and frequentist tests of the log-evidences. In particular, we found that the hierarchical Bayesian approach is considerably more robust than either of the other approaches in the presence of outliers. We expect that this new random effects method will prove useful for a wide range of group studies, not only in the context of DCM, but also for other modelling endeavours, e.g. comparing different source reconstruction methods for EEG/MEG or selecting among competing computational models of learning and decision-making.

0 Followers
 · 
150 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adults and children rely heavily on other people's testimony. However, domains of knowledge where there is no consensus on the truth are likely to result in conflicting testimonies. Previous research has demonstrated that in these cases, learners look towards the majority opinion to make decisions. However , it remains unclear how learners evaluate social information , given that considering either the overall valence, or the number of testimonies, or both may lead to different conclusions. We therefore formalized several social learning strategies and compared them to the performance of adults and children. We find that children use different strategies than adults. This suggests that the development of social learning may involve the acquisition of cognitive strategies.
    Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Pasadena; 07/2015
  • Seeing and perceiving 01/2012; 25:76-76. DOI:10.1163/187847612X646974 · 1.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been considerable interest from the fields of biology, economics, psychology, and ecology about how decision costs decrease the value of rewarding outcomes. For example, formal descriptions of how reward value changes with increasing temporal delays allow for quantifying individual decision preferences, as in animal species populating different habitats, or normal and clinical human populations. Strikingly, it remains largely unclear how humans evaluate rewards when these are tied to energetic costs, despite the surge of interest in the neural basis of effort-guided decision-making and the prevalence of disorders showing a diminished willingness to exert effort (e.g., depression). One common assumption is that effort discounts reward in a similar way to delay. Here we challenge this assumption by formally comparing competing hypotheses about effort and delay discounting. We used a design specifically optimized to compare discounting behavior for both effort and delay over a wide range of decision costs (Experiment 1). We then additionally characterized the profile of effort discounting free of model assumptions (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous reports, in both experiments effort costs devalued reward in a manner opposite to delay, with small devaluations for lower efforts, and progressively larger devaluations for higher effort-levels (concave shape). Bayesian model comparison confirmed that delay-choices were best predicted by a hyperbolic model, with the largest reward devaluations occurring at shorter delays. In contrast, an altogether different relationship was observed for effort-choices, which were best described by a model of inverse sigmoidal shape that is initially concave. Our results provide a novel characterization of human effort discounting behavior and its first dissociation from delay discounting. This enables accurate modelling of cost-benefit decisions, a prerequisite for the investigation of the neural underpinnings of effort-guided choice and for understanding the deficits in clinical disorders characterized by behavioral inactivity.
    PLoS Computational Biology 03/2015; 11(3):e1004116. DOI:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004116 · 4.83 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
74 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014