2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
138
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 113 publications
(145 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
7
138
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Deconfounding approaches used in standard GLM-based analysis must be adapted to out-sample data, and can easily lead to pessimistic evaluations [7]. Indeed, when there is shared signal between the effect of interest and the confound in the brain data, deconfounding fully removes this signal and makes it impossible to build a prediction from it.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Deconfounding approaches used in standard GLM-based analysis must be adapted to out-sample data, and can easily lead to pessimistic evaluations [7]. Indeed, when there is shared signal between the effect of interest and the confound in the brain data, deconfounding fully removes this signal and makes it impossible to build a prediction from it.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One solution is to apply deconfounding jointly on the train and the test set, but it breaks the statistical validity of cross-validation [11] by coupling the train and the test set, hence it gives biased results. Another solution is to apply deconfounding separately on the train and the test set, but this can be very pessimistic [7]. Indeed the shared variance removed is then an in-sample property, and grows larger in an uncontrolled way for small test sets.…”
Section: Method: Anti Mutual-information Subsampling a Formalizimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In keeping with the recommended strategy (48), both the symptom dimensional-scores and rs-FC features were adjusted for confounding effects of age, gender, site, and head-motion (DVARS). To avoid data-leakage within cross-validation (49), confound regression models were learned only on the training-set and then applied on both training and test data (50,51). The RVM model was then trained on confound-adjusted training data and applied to the confound-adjusted held-out test data.…”
Section: Prediction Of Symptom Dimensions Using Network Rs-fcmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…//github.com/lukassnoek/MVCA), as described in the author's article74 . Responses were z-scaled using training set means and standard deviations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%