Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data

Lukas Snoek, Steven Miletić, H. Steven Scholte
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/290684
Lukas Snoek
1University of Amsterdam, department of Psychology (Brain and Cognition), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven Miletić
1University of Amsterdam, department of Psychology (Brain and Cognition), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Steven Scholte
1University of Amsterdam, department of Psychology (Brain and Cognition), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, multivariate pattern analyses and especially decoding analyses have become a popular alternative to traditional mass-univariate analyses in neuroimaging research. However, a fundamental limitation of decoding analyses is that the source of information driving the decoder is ambiguous, which becomes problematic when the to-be-decoded variable is confounded by variables that are not of primary interest. In this study, we use a comprehensive set of simulations and analyses of empirical data to evaluate two techniques that were previously proposed and used to control for confounding variables in decoding analyses: counterbalancing and confound regression. For our empirical analyses, we attempt to decode gender from structural MRI data when controlling for the confound “brain size”. We show that both methods introduce strong biases in decoding performance: counterbalancing leads to better performance than expected (i.e., positive bias), which we show in our simulations is due to the subsampling process that tends to remove samples that are hard to classify; confound regression, on the other hand, leads to worse performance than expected (i.e., negative bias), even resulting in significant below-chance performance in some scenarios. In our simulations, we show that below-chance accuracy can be predicted by the variance of the distribution of correlations between the features and the target. Importantly, we show that this negative bias disappears in both the empirical analyses and simulations when the confound regression procedure performed in every fold of the cross-validation routine, yielding plausible model performance. From these results, we conclude that foldwise confound regression is the only method that appropriately controls for confounds, which thus can be used to gain more insight into the exact source(s) of information driving one’s decoding analysis.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The interpretation of decoding models is ambiguous when dealing with confounds;

  • We evaluate two methods, counterbalancing and confound regression, in their ability to control for confounds;

  • We find that counterbalancing leads to positive bias because it removes hard-to-classify samples;

  • We find that confound regression leads to negative bias, because it yields data with less signal than expected by chance;

  • Our simulations demonstrate a tight relationship between model performance in decoding analyses and the sample distribution of the correlation coefficient;

  • We show that the negative bias observed in confound regression can be remedied by cross-validating the confound regression procedure.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 23, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data
Lukas Snoek, Steven Miletić, H. Steven Scholte
bioRxiv 290684; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/290684
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data
Lukas Snoek, Steven Miletić, H. Steven Scholte
bioRxiv 290684; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/290684

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Neuroscience
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3603)
  • Biochemistry (7570)
  • Bioengineering (5526)
  • Bioinformatics (20798)
  • Biophysics (10329)
  • Cancer Biology (7985)
  • Cell Biology (11640)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6606)
  • Ecology (10205)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13620)
  • Genetics (9542)
  • Genomics (12847)
  • Immunology (7921)
  • Microbiology (19543)
  • Molecular Biology (7660)
  • Neuroscience (42113)
  • Paleontology (308)
  • Pathology (1258)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2202)
  • Physiology (3267)
  • Plant Biology (7042)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1294)
  • Synthetic Biology (1951)
  • Systems Biology (5426)
  • Zoology (1117)