The Library

A novel extended Granger Causal model approach demonstrates brain hemispheric differences during face recognition learning

Tools

Ge, Tian, Kendrick, Keith M. and Feng, Jianfeng. (2009) A novel extended Granger Causal model approach demonstrates brain hemispheric differences during face recognition learning. PL o S Computational Biology, Vol.5 (No.11). ISSN 1553-734X

Preview

PDF
jWRAP_Feng_journal.pcbi.1000570[1].pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (1067Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000570

Abstract

Two main approaches in exploring causal relationships in biological systems using time-series data are the application of Dynamic Causal model (DCM) and Granger Causal model (GCM). These have been extensively applied to brain imaging data and are also readily applicable to a wide range of temporal changes involving genes, proteins or metabolic pathways. However, these two approaches have always been considered to be radically different from each other and therefore used independently. Here we present a novel approach which is an extension of Granger Causal model and also shares the features of the bilinear approximation of Dynamic Causal model. We have first tested the efficacy of the extended GCM by applying it extensively in toy models in both time and frequency domains and then applied it to local field potential recording data collected from in vivo multi-electrode array experiments. We demonstrate face discrimination learninginduced changes in inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity and in the hemispheric predominance of theta and gamma frequency oscillations in sheep inferotemporal cortex. The results provide the first evidence for connectivity changes between and within left and right inferotemporal cortexes as a result of face recognition learning.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	Q Science > QA Mathematics Q Science > QH Natural history > QH301 Biology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Centre for Scientific Computing Faculty of Science > Computer Science
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Biology -- Data processing, Biological systems, Time-series analysis, Cerebral hemispheres, Face perception
Journal or Publication Title:	PL o S Computational Biology
Publisher:	Public Library of Science
ISSN:	1553-734X
Date:	20 November 2009
Volume:	Vol.5
Number:	No.11
Number of Pages:	13
Identification Number:	10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000570
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Great Britain) (BBSRC), European Union (EU)
Grant number:	CARMAN (EPSRC), CARMAN (EU)
References:	1. Cantone I, Marucci L, Iorio F, Ricci M, Belcastro V, et al. (2009) A yeast synthetic network for in vivo assessment of reverse-engineering and modeling approaches. Cell 137: 172–181. 2. Camacho D, Collins J (2009) Systems biology strikes gold. Cell 137: 24–26. 3. Zou C, Kendrick KM, Feng J (2009) The fourth way: Granger causality is better than the three other reverse-engineering approaches. Cell http://www.cell.com/ comments/S0092-8674(09)00156-1. 4. Bressler SL, Tang W, Sylvester CM, Shulman GL, Corbetta M (2008) Top- Down Control of Human Visual Cortex by Frontal and Parietal Cortex in Anticipatory Visual Spatial Attention. J Neurosci 28: 10056–10061. 5. Seth A (2008) Causal networks in simulated neural systems. Cogn Neurodyn 2: 49–64. 6. Seth AK, Edelman GM (2007) Distinguishing causal interactions in neural populations. Neural Computation 19: 910–933. 7. Simpson EH (1951) The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 13: 238–241. 8. Pearl J (1998) Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 9. Zou C, Feng J (2009) Granger causality vs. dynamic bayesian network inference: a comparative study. BMC Bioinformatics 10: 122. 10. Friston K (2009) Causal modelling and brain connectivity in functional magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS Biol 7: e1000033. 11. David O, Guillemain I, Saillet S, Reyt S, Deransart C, et al. (2008) Identifying neural drivers with functional mri: An electrophysiological validation. PLoS Biol 6: e315. 12. Friston K, Harrison L, Penny W (2003) Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage 19: 1273–1302. 13. Kendrick K, Zhan Y, Fischer H, Nicol AU, Zhang X, et al. (2009) Learning alters theta-nested gamma oscillations in inferotemporal cortex. Nature Precedings. hdl: 10101/ npre. 2009.3151.1. 14. Peirce JW, Kendrick KM (2002) Functional asymmetry in sheep temporal cortex. NeuroReport 13: 2395–2399. 15. Kendrick KM (2006) Brain asymmetries for face recognition and emotion control in sheep. Cortex 42: 96–98. 16. Tate AJ, Fischer H, Leigh AE, Kendrick KM (2006) Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361: 2155–2172. 17. Shinohara Y, Hirase H, Watanabe M, Itakura M, Takahashi M, et al. (2008) Left-right asymmetry of the hippocampal synapses with differential subunit allocation of glutamate receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 19498–19503. 18. MacNeilage PF, Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G (2009) Evolutionary origins of your right and left brain. Scientific American Magazine. 6/24/09. 19. Turgeon M (1994) Right-brain left-brain reflexology: a self-help approach to balancing life energies with color, sound, and pressure point techniques. RochesterVT: Healing Arts Press. 20. Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37: 414–428. 21. Sun X, Jin L, Xiong M (2008) Extended kalman filter for estimation of parameters in nonlinear state-space models of biochemical networks. PLoS ONE 3: e3758. 22. Li P, Goodall R, Kadirkamanathan V (2004) Estimation of parameters in a linear state space model using a rao-blackwellised particle filter. Control Theory and Applications, IEE Proceedings 151: 727–738. 23. Guo S, Wu J, Ding M, Feng J (2008) Uncovering interactions in the frequency domain. PLoS Comput Biol 4: e1000087. 24. Schelter B, Winterhalder M, Timmer J (2006) Handbook of time series analysis: recent theoretical developments and applications. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. 25. Geweke J (1982) Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association 77: 304–313. 26. Geweke J (1984) Measures of conditional linear dependence and feedback between time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79: 907–915. 27. Guo S, Seth AK, Kendrick KM, Zhou C, Feng J (2008) Partial granger causality–eliminating exogenous inputs and latent variables. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 172: 79–93. 28. Chen Y, Rangarajan G, Feng J, Ding M (2004) Analyzing multiple nonlinear time series with extended granger causality. Physics Letters A 324: 26–35. 29. Ladroue C, Guo S, Kendrick K, Feng J (2009) Beyond element-wise interactions: Identifying complex interactions in biological processes. PLoS ONE 4: e6899+. 30. Wu J, Liu X, Feng J (2008) Detecting causality between different frequencies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 167: 367–375. 31. Gourvitch B, Bouquin-Jeanns RL, Faucon G (2006) Linear and nonlinear causality between signals: methods, examples and neurophysiological applications. Biol Cybern 95: 349–369. 32. David O, Guillemain I, Saillet S, Reyt S, Deransart C, et al. (2008) Identifying neural drivers with functional mri: An electrophysiological validation. PLoS Biol 6: e315. 33. Arulampalam S, Maskell S, Gordon N (2002) A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-gaussian bayesian tracking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 50: 174–188. 34. Nelson A (2007) Nonlinear estimation and modeling of noisy time-series by dual Kalman filtering methods. Ph.D. thesis. 35. Buzsaki G (2006) Rhythms of the Brain. USA: Oxford University Press. 36. David O, Kiebel S, Harrison L, Mattout J, Kilner J, et al. (2006) Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG and MEG. NeuroImage 30: 1255–1272. 37. Feng J, Yi D, Krishna R, Guo S, Buchanan-Wollaston V (2009) Listen to genes: Dealing with microarray data in the frequency domain. PLoS ONE 4: e5098+. 38. Sedwick C (2009) Practice makes perfect: Learning mind control of prosthetics. PLoS Biol 7: e1000152. 39. Robinson R (2009) From child to young adult, the brain changes its connections. PLoS Biol 7: e1000158. 40. Horton PM, Nicol AU, Kendrick KM, Feng JF (2007) Spike sorting based upon machine learning algorithms (soma). Journal of Neuroscience Methods 160: 52–68. 41. Valdes-Sosa PA (2004) Spatio-temporal autoregressive models defined over brain manifolds. Neuroinformatics 2: 239–250. 42. Namiki S, Matsuki N, Ikegaya Y (2009) Large-scale imaging of brain network activity from .10,000 neocortical cells. Nature Precedings. 2009.2893.1. 43. Friston KJ, Trujillo-Barreto N, Daunizeau J (2008) Dem: A variational treatment of dynamic systems. NeuroImage 41: 849–885.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/2336