Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The purpose of this page is just to serve as todo or scratch pad for the development project and to
list and share some ideas.
After making changes to the code and/or documentation, this page should remain on the wiki as a
reminder of what was done and how it was done. However, there is no guarantee that this page is
updated in the end to reflect the final state of the project
So chances are that this page is considerably outdated and irrelevant. The notes here might not
reflect the current state of the code, and you should not use this as serious documentation.
Z-scores are being used as a means to 'normalize' the data before doing over-subjects statistics.
However, there are many ways of implementing this and at the moment there is not much consensus
what the best method is.
Objectives
● to find a proper method for homogenizing data prior to statistical testing, with the purpose of not
losing sensitivity (or even possibly gaining sensitivity) in case of a MCP
1. Goal:
What we want to accomplish is at the same time control the false alarm rate, and have max
statistical power.
2. Problems:
Ad 1)
● slow drifts in the data, independent of conditions: this increases variance/reduces the sensitivity
(with respect to the effect one is interested in)
● different size of effect at different locations and/or frequencies (e.g. 1/f effect in power, or depth
bias of beamed power)
Ad 2)
3. Possible solutions:
Ad 1)
Ad 2)
● baseline correction
● descriptive statistical measure
● ratio between conditions A and B
● log(power) [also helps against 1/f effect]
● zscores
4. Assumptions:
The choice of the 'best' solution will (probably) depend on the characteristics of the data. Ideally,
this will lead to a simple scheme with for each type of data characteristics the optimal method. The
choice for the best method for a particular dataset will then depend on the question 'what are the
properties of the data?'.
The simulated dataset should consist of two conditions, baseline and activation, that can be
compared and should contain an effect that is small enough to not always be detected by the
statistical test. We will ignore the MCP, since cluster randomization effectively deals with that, so it
is not of current interest.
● with for the additive effect model: e1 = 1, e2 > 0, and for the multiplicative effect model: e1 > 1,
e2 = 0.
● phys is the physiological signal, consisting of a 'constant' (e.g. alpha oscillation) modulated by a
slow drift
● noise is the 'real' external noise, which is random
● lambda_phys and lambda_ext are scaling factors for the physiological and external noise, resp.
This way we can vary the size/range of effect and noise, have multiple trials and at the same time
repeat the statistical test several times, using freqstatistics.
We need a range of effect and noise size where at the edges the effect is always found (effect high,
noise low) resp. never found (effect low, noise high). In the range in between, it will sometimes turn
up, sometimes not. If we repeat the statistical test several times (using the chan dim) and average
the results we have a nice measure of the statistical power. Now we can go to the next step and
repeat this using the different homogenization methods and see whether they improve the statistical
power.
The results of using 1 repetition of the stats test (i.e., 1 channel). The left figure shows 'stat', right
shows 'mask'. On the x-axis is noise level, on y-axis effect level, the colouring codes the stat (t values)
The results of using 500 repetitions of the stats test. Since the noise is randomly generated the
results turn out little bit different for each run. Averaging the masks over repetitions reflects the
statistical power (=1-beta)
The results of using 500 repetitions of the stats test. The left figure shows 'stat', right shows 'mask'.
effect model:
● additive
● multiplicative
noise model:
● random noise
● slow drift
From:
http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/ - FieldTrip
Permanent link:
http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/development/zscores