title: Linear mixed-effects modeling approach to FMRI group analysis.
abstract: Conventional group analysis is usually performed with Student-type t-test, regression, or standard AN(C)OVA in which the variance-covariance matrix is presumed to have a simple structure. Some correction approaches are adopted when assumptions about the covariance structure is violated. However, as experiments are designed with different degrees of sophistication, these traditional methods can become cumbersome, or even be unable to handle the situation at hand. For example, most current FMRI software packages have difficulty analyzing the following scenarios at group level: (1) taking within-subject variability into account when there are effect estimates from multiple runs or sessions; (2) continuous explanatory variables (covariates) modeling in the presence of a within-subject (repeated measures) factor, multiple subject-grouping (between-subjects) factors, or the mixture of both; (3) subject-specific adjustments in covariate modeling; (4) group analysis with estimation of hemodynamic response (HDR) function by multiple basis functions; (5) various cases of missing data in longitudinal studies; and (6) group studies involving family members or twins. Here we present a linear mixed-effects modeling (LME) methodology that extends the conventional group analysis approach to analyze many complicated cases, including the six prototypes delineated above, whose analyses would be otherwise either difficult or unfeasible under traditional frameworks such as AN(C)OVA and general linear model (GLM). In addition, the strength of the LME framework lies in its flexibility to model and estimate the variance-covariance structures for both random effects and residuals. The intraclass correlation (ICC) values can be easily obtained with an LME model with crossed random effects, even at the presence of confounding fixed effects. The simulations of one prototypical scenario indicate that the LME modeling keeps a balance between the control for false positives and the sensitivity for activation detection. The importance of hypothesis formulation is also illustrated in the simulations. Comparisons with alternative group analysis approaches and the limitations of LME are discussed in details.
authors: Scientific and Statistical Computing Core, NIMH/NIH/HHS, USA. gangchen@mail.nih.gov
authors: Gang
authors: G
authors: Chen
authors: Ziad S
authors: ZS
authors: Saad
authors: Jennifer C
authors: JC
authors: Britton
authors: Daniel S
authors: DS
authors: Pine
authors: Robert W
authors: RW
authors: Cox
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006439:Hemodynamics / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D016014:Linear Models; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008959:Models, Neurological; D016011:Normal Distribution; D018433:Twin Studies as Topic
references: Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1639-51
references: 15050587
references: Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Oct;170(10):1195-204
references: 23929092
references: Neuroimage. 1998 Nov;8(4):360-9
references: 9811554
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Oct 1;15(7):991-1001
references: 14614810
references: Neuroimage. 2002 Jun;16(2):538-50
references: 12030836
references: Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jun;29(3):162-73
references: 8812068
references: Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):83-97
references: 11771976
references: Behav Genet. 1989 Jan;19(1):37-49
references: 2712812
references: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2001 May;54(Pt 1):1-20
references: 11393894
references: Biometrics. 1946 Dec;2(6):110-4
references: 20287815
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012 May;31(5):1100-12
references: 22287236
references: Neuroimage. 2011 Mar 1;55(1):389-400
references: 21111828
references: Mol Syst Biol. 2011 Aug 30;7:525
references: 21878913
references: J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 7;31(36):12855-65
references: 21900564
references: Neuroimage. 2007 Apr 1;35(2):904-15
references: 17292627
references: PLoS Genet. 2012;8(2):e1002505
references: 22383892
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Jul;9(7):971-8
references: 16767087
references: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2007 May;60(Pt 1):29-60
references: 17535578
references: Biometrics. 2012 Dec;68(4):1083-92
references: 22551084
references: Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):1-15
references: 11771969
references: Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1732-47
references: 15050594
references: Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 1;66:249-60
references: 23123680
references: Neuroimage. 2012 Apr 15;60(3):1843-55
references: 22500925
references: Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
references: 18839484
references: Neuroimage. 2012 Mar;60(1):747-65
references: 22245637
references: Neuroimage. 1997 Aug;6(2):93-103
references: 9299383
references: Biometrics. 2011 Sep;67(3):987-95
references: 21306354
references: Biometrics. 1997 Sep;53(3):983-97
references: 9333350
references: Neuroimage. 2005 Apr 15;25(3):653-60
references: 15808966
references: Nat Genet. 2006 Feb;38(2):203-8
references: 16380716
references: Hum Brain Mapp. 2006 May;27(5):417-24
references: 16568421