Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2203.00053

Fast Bayesian estimation of brain activation with cortical surface and subcortical fMRI data using EM

Daniel Spencer·David Bolin·Mary Beth Nebel·Amanda Mejia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Analysis of brain imaging scans is critical to understanding the way the human brain functions, which can be leveraged to treat injuries and conditions that affect the quality of life for a significant portion of the human population. In particular, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans give detailed data on a living subject at high spatial and temporal resolutions. Due to the high cost involved in the collection of these scans, robust methods of analysis are of critical importance in order to produce meaningful inference. Bayesian methods in particular allow for the inclusion of expected behavior from prior study into an analysis, increasing the power of the results while circumventing problems that arise in classical analyses, including the effects of smoothing results and sensitivity to multiple comparison testing corrections. Recent development of a surface-based spatial Bayesian general linear model for cortical surface fMRI (cs-fMRI) data provides the desired power increase in task fMRI data using stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) priors. This model relies on the computational efficiencies of the integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) to perform powerful analyses that have been validated to outperform classical analyses. In this article, we develop an exact Bayesian analysis method for the GLM, employing an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to find maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates of task-based regressors on cs-fMRI and subcortical fMRI data while using minimal computational resources. Our proposed method is compared to the INLA implementation of the Bayesian GLM, as well as a classical GLM on simulated data. A validation of the method on data from the Human Connectome Project is also provided.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Daniel Spencer, David Bolin, Mary Beth Nebel, Amanda Mejia. 2022-02-28. Fast Bayesian estimation of brain activation with cortical surface and subcortical fMRI data using EM. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.00053

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗