IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1004237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Model Fitting Necessary for Model-Based fMRI?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert C Wilson
  • Yael Niv

Abstract

Model-based analysis of fMRI data is an important tool for investigating the computational role of different brain regions. With this method, theoretical models of behavior can be leveraged to find the brain structures underlying variables from specific algorithms, such as prediction errors in reinforcement learning. One potential weakness with this approach is that models often have free parameters and thus the results of the analysis may depend on how these free parameters are set. In this work we asked whether this hypothetical weakness is a problem in practice. We first developed general closed-form expressions for the relationship between results of fMRI analyses using different regressors, e.g., one corresponding to the true process underlying the measured data and one a model-derived approximation of the true generative regressor. Then, as a specific test case, we examined the sensitivity of model-based fMRI to the learning rate parameter in reinforcement learning, both in theory and in two previously-published datasets. We found that even gross errors in the learning rate lead to only minute changes in the neural results. Our findings thus suggest that precise model fitting is not always necessary for model-based fMRI. They also highlight the difficulty in using fMRI data for arbitrating between different models or model parameters. While these specific results pertain only to the effect of learning rate in simple reinforcement learning models, we provide a template for testing for effects of different parameters in other models.Author Summary: In recent years, model-based fMRI has emerged as a powerful technique in psychology and neuroscience. With this method, computational models of behavior can be leveraged to identify where, whether and how different algorithms are implemented in the brain. Yet this approach seems to have an Achilles heel in that the models frequently have free parameters, and errors in setting these parameters could lead to errors in interpretation of the data. Here we asked whether this potential weakness, in theory, is an actual weakness in practice. In particular, we tested whether errors in estimating participants’ learning rate in a trial-and-error reinforcement learning setting would have adverse effects on identifying the neural substrates of the learning process. Amazingly, it turns out that even gross errors in the learning rate lead to only minute changes in the neural results. The good news is that precise identification of free parameters is not always necessary; the corollary bad news is that it may be harder to identify the precise computational roles of different brain areas than we had previously appreciated. Based on our analytical results, we offer suggestions for designing experiments that maximize or minimize sensitivity to model parameters, as needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert C Wilson & Yael Niv, 2015. "Is Model Fitting Necessary for Model-Based fMRI?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004237
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004237
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004237&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Camelia Kuhnen & Brian Knutson, 2005. "The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking," Experimental 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Robert C Wilson & Matthew R Nassar & Joshua I Gold, 2013. "A Mixture of Delta-Rules Approximation to Bayesian Inference in Change-Point Problems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    4. Marijke Welvaert & Yves Rosseel, 2013. "On the Definition of Signal-To-Noise Ratio and Contrast-To-Noise Ratio for fMRI Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-10, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John A Clithero & Dharol Tankersley & Scott A Huettel, 2008. "Foundations of Neuroeconomics: From Philosophy to Practice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-6, November.
    2. Sebastian Lehmann & Martin Reimann, 2012. "The influence of time and money on product evaluations - a neurophysiological analysis," FEMM Working Papers 120011, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    3. Payam Piray & Nathaniel D. Daw, 2021. "A model for learning based on the joint estimation of stochasticity and volatility," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    5. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    6. Yuping Jia & Laurence Van Lent & Yachang Zeng, 2014. "Masculinity, Testosterone, and Financial Misreporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1195-1246, December.
    7. Lina Koppel & David Andersson & India Morrison & Kinga Posadzy & Daniel Västfjäll & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "The effect of acute pain on risky and intertemporal choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 878-893, December.
    8. Carstensen, Laura L. & Reynolds, Megan E., 2023. "Age differences in preferences through the lens of socioemotional selectivity theory," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    9. Shi, Yuwei & Herniman, John, 2023. "The role of expectation in innovation evolution: Exploring hype cycles," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Sashittal, Hemant C. & Sriramachandramurthy, Rajendran & Hodis, Monica, 2012. "Targeting college students on Facebook? How to stop wasting your money," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 495-507.
    11. Geert Bekaert & Eric C. Engstrom & Nancy R. Xu, 2022. "The Time Variation in Risk Appetite and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 3975-4004, June.
    12. Carl Senior & Nick Lee & Michael Butler, 2011. "PERSPECTIVE---Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 804-815, June.
    13. Peter S. Riefer & Bradley C. Love, 2015. "Unfazed by Both the Bull and Bear: Strategic Exploration in Dynamic Environments," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-11, August.
    14. Chen Ying & Härdle Wolfgang K. & He Qiang & Majer Piotr, 2018. "Risk related brain regions detection and individual risk classification with 3D image FPCA," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(3-4), pages 89-110, July.
    15. Makoto Naruse & Eiji Yamamoto & Takashi Nakao & Takuma Akimoto & Hayato Saigo & Kazuya Okamura & Izumi Ojima & Georg Northoff & Hirokazu Hori, 2018. "Why is the environment important for decision making? Local reservoir model for choice-based learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Wang, Albert Y. & Young, Michael, 2023. "Mood, attention, and household trading: Evidence from terrorist attacks," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Brañas Garza, Pablo & Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Repollés Pro, María, 2010. "Time discounting (delta) and pain anticipation: Experimental evidence," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    18. Betül Kalaycı & Ayşe Özmen & Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, 2020. "Mutual relevance of investor sentiment and finance by modeling coupled stochastic systems with MARS," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 295(1), pages 183-206, December.
    19. Cary Frydman & Nicholas Barberis & Colin Camerer & Peter Bossaerts & Antonio Rangel, 2012. "Using Neural Data to Test a Theory of Investor Behavior: An Application to Realization Utility," NBER Working Papers 18562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Yoshiro Tsutsui & Iku Tsutsui-Kimura, 2022. "How does risk preference change under the stress of COVID-19? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 191-212, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1004237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.