Cited by 416Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Nonlinear dynamic causal models for fMRI

Open access
Stephan, Klaas Enno, Kasper, Lars, Harrison, Lee M., Daunizeau, Jean, den Ouden, Hanneke E.M., Breakspear, Michael, Friston, Karl J.·2008·NeuroImage

Abstract

Models of effective connectivity characterize the influence that neuronal populations exert over each other. Additionally, some approaches, for example Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and variants of Structural Equation Modelling, describe how effective connectivity is modulated by experimental manipulations. Mathematically, both are based on bilinear equations, where the bilinear term models the effect of experimental manipulations on neuronal interactions. The bilinear framework, however, precludes an important aspect of neuronal interactions that has been established with invasive electrophysiological recording studies; i.e., how the connection between two neuronal units is enabled or gated by activity in other units. These gating processes are critical for controlling the gain of neuronal populations and are mediated through interactions between synaptic inputs (e.g. by means of voltage-sensitive ion channels). They represent a key mechanism for various neurobiological processes, including top-down (e.g. attentional) modulation, learning and neuromodulation. This paper presents a nonlinear extension of DCM that models such processes (to second order) at the neuronal population level. In this way, the modulation of network interactions can be assigned to an explicit neuronal population. We present simulations and empirical results that demonstrate the validity and usefulness of this model. Analyses of synthetic data showed that nonlinear and bilinear mechanisms can be distinguished by our extended DCM. When applying the model to empirical fMRI data from a blocked attention to motion paradigm, we found that attention-induced increases in V5 responses could be best explained as a gating of the V1-->V5 connection by activity in posterior parietal cortex. Furthermore, we analysed fMRI data from an event-related binocular rivalry paradigm and found that interactions amongst percept-selective visual areas were modulated by activity in the middle frontal gyrus. In both practical examples, Bayesian model selection favoured the nonlinear models over corresponding bilinear ones.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.262

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Extensions of DCM have considered non-linear and stochastic differential equations, which enable DCM to account for dynamic gain effects at synapses and intrinsic fluctuations, respectively.

    “Subsequent extensions have considered non-linear (Stephan et al., 2008) and stochastic differential equations (Li et al., 2011), which enable DCM to account for dynamic gain effects at synapses and intrinsic fluctuations, respectively.”
  • By simulating data from models with specified causal mechanisms, it is straightforward to assess whether, for a given level of observation noise, DCM is capable of correctly inferring these mechanisms.

    “By simulating data from models with specified causal mechanisms, it is straightforward to assess whether, for a given level of observation noise, DCM is capable of correctly inferring these mechanisms.”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Stephan et al., 2008

  • For DCM, face validity has been explored in terms of simulations, construct validity has been established in relation to other models such as SEM and large-scale models of spiking neurons, and predictive validity has been addressed by verifying that DCM results fulfill predictions from independent experimental measures such as microdialysis and invasive electrophysiological recordings.

    “For DCM, face validity has been explored in terms of simulations (e.g., Friston et al., 2003; Stephan et al., 2008), construct validity has been established in relation to other models such as SEM (Penny et al., 2004b) and large-scale models of spiking neurons (Lee et al., 2006), and predictive validity has been addressed by verifying that DCM results fulfill predictions from independent ex”

    From Ten simple rules for dynamic causal modeling (2010) · cites this paper as Stephan et al., 2008

  • One can model state-dependency and ensuing itinerancy by adding nonlinear (quadratic) terms to the coupling matrix.

    “One can model this state-dependency, and ensuing itinerancy, by simply adding nonlinear (quadratic) terms to the coupling matrix as described in Stephan et al., (2008).”

    From Network discovery with DCM (2011) · cites this paper as Stephan et al., (2008)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 416

Authors
Stephan, K. E., Kasper, L., Harrison, L. M., Daunizeau, J., den Ouden, H. E. M., Breakspear, M., & Friston, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Stephan, Klaas Enno
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
649-662
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095978766
Cited by
416
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 30
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (056750, 088130)
  • Bundesamt für Gesundheit
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
effective connectivity, bilinear model, top-down attention, posterior parietal cortex, binocular rivalry, middle frontal gyrus, Bayesian model selection, functional MRI
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, Nonlinear Dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review