Speeding up Permutation Testing in Neuroimaging.

Chris Hinrichs, Vamsi K Ithapu, Qinyuan Sun, Sterling C Johnson, Vikas Singh
Author Information
  1. Chris Hinrichs: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  2. Vamsi K Ithapu: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  3. Qinyuan Sun: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  4. Sterling C Johnson: William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital.
  5. Vikas Singh: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Abstract

Multiple hypothesis testing is a significant problem in nearly all neuroimaging studies. In order to correct for this phenomena, we require a reliable estimate of the Family-Wise Error Rate (FWER). The well known Bonferroni correction method, while simple to implement, is quite conservative, and can substantially under-power a study because it ignores dependencies between test statistics. Permutation testing, on the other hand, is an exact, non-parametric method of estimating the FWER for a given α-threshold, but for acceptably low thresholds the computational burden can be prohibitive. In this paper, we show that permutation testing in fact amounts to populating the columns of a very large matrix P. By analyzing the spectrum of this matrix, under certain conditions, we see that P has a low-rank plus a low-variance residual decomposition which makes it suitable for highly sub-sampled - on the order of 0.5% - matrix completion methods. Based on this observation, we propose a novel permutation testing methodology which offers a large speedup, without sacrificing the fidelity of the estimated FWER. Our evaluations on four different neuroimaging datasets show that a computational speedup factor of roughly 50× can be achieved while recovering the FWER distribution up to very high accuracy. Further, we show that the estimated α-threshold is also recovered faithfully, and is stable.

References

  1. Neuroimage. 2013 Sep;78:270-83 [PMID: 23583748]
  2. Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1589-601 [PMID: 12948714]
  3. Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Sep;95(3):221-7 [PMID: 16077740]
  4. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003 Oct;12(5):419-46 [PMID: 14599004]
  5. Heredity (Edinb). 2001 Jul;87(Pt 1):52-8 [PMID: 11678987]
  6. Neuroimage. 2001 Dec;14(6):1238-43 [PMID: 11707080]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9440-5 [PMID: 12883005]
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Dec 2;105(48):18718-23 [PMID: 19033188]
  9. Neuroimage. 2005 Apr 1;25(2):383-94 [PMID: 15784416]
  10. Neuroimage. 2000 Jun;11(6 Pt 1):805-21 [PMID: 10860804]
  11. BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):170 [PMID: 7833759]

Grants

  1. R01 AG040396/NIA NIH HHS
  2. UL1 TR000427/NCATS NIH HHS
  3. UL1 RR025011/NCRR NIH HHS
  4. P50 AG033514/NIA NIH HHS
  5. I01 CX000165/CSRD VA
  6. T15 LM007359/NLM NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0testingFWERcanshowmatrixneuroimagingordermethodPermutationα-thresholdcomputationalpermutationlargeP-speedupestimatedMultiplehypothesissignificantproblemnearlystudiescorrectphenomenarequirereliableestimateFamily-WiseErrorRatewellknownBonferronicorrectionsimpleimplementquiteconservativesubstantiallyunder-powerstudyignoresdependenciesteststatisticshandexactnon-parametricestimatinggivenacceptablylowthresholdsburdenprohibitivepaperfactamountspopulatingcolumnsanalyzingspectrumcertainconditionsseelow-rankpluslow-varianceresidualdecompositionmakessuitablehighlysub-sampled05%completionmethodsBasedobservationproposenovelmethodologyofferswithoutsacrificingfidelityevaluationsfourdifferentdatasetsfactorroughly50×achievedrecoveringdistributionhighaccuracyalsorecoveredfaithfullystableSpeedingTestingNeuroimaging

Similar Articles

Cited By