IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007924.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A validation framework for neuroimaging software: The case of population receptive fields

Author

Listed:
  • Garikoitz Lerma-Usabiaga
  • Noah Benson
  • Jonathan Winawer
  • Brian A Wandell

Abstract

Neuroimaging software methods are complex, making it a near certainty that some implementations will contain errors. Modern computational techniques (i.e., public code and data repositories, continuous integration, containerization) enable the reproducibility of the analyses and reduce coding errors, but they do not guarantee the scientific validity of the results. It is difficult, nay impossible, for researchers to check the accuracy of software by reading the source code; ground truth test datasets are needed. Computational reproducibility means providing software so that for the same input anyone obtains the same result, right or wrong. Computational validity means obtaining the right result for the ground-truth test data. We describe a framework for validating and sharing software implementations, and we illustrate its usage with an example application: population receptive field (pRF) methods for functional MRI data. The framework is composed of three main components implemented with containerization methods to guarantee computational reproducibility. In our example pRF application, those components are: (1) synthesis of fMRI time series from ground-truth pRF parameters, (2) implementation of four public pRF analysis tools and standardization of inputs and outputs, and (3) report creation to compare the results with the ground truth parameters. The framework was useful in identifying realistic conditions that lead to imperfect parameter recovery in all four pRF implementations, that would remain undetected using classic validation methods. We provide means to mitigate these problems in future experiments. A computational validation framework supports scientific rigor and creativity, as opposed to the oft-repeated suggestion that investigators rely upon a few agreed upon packages. We hope that the framework will be helpful to validate other critical neuroimaging algorithms, as having a validation framework helps (1) developers to build new software, (2) research scientists to verify the software’s accuracy, and (3) reviewers to evaluate the methods used in publications and grants.Author summary: Computer science provides powerful tools and techniques for implementing and deploying software. These techniques support software collaboration, reduce coding errors and enable reproducibility of the analyses. A further question is whether the software estimates are correct (valid). We describe a framework for validating and sharing software implementations based on ground-truth testing. As an example, we applied the framework to four separate applications that implemented population receptive field (pRF) estimates for functional MRI data. We quantified the validity, and we also documented limitations with these applications. Finally, we provide ways to mitigate these limitations. Implementing a software validation framework along with sharing and reproducibility is an important step for the complex methods used in neuroscience. Validation will help developers to build new software, researchers verify that the results are valid, and reviewers to evaluate the precision of methods in publications and grants.

Suggested Citation

  • Garikoitz Lerma-Usabiaga & Noah Benson & Jonathan Winawer & Brian A Wandell, 2020. "A validation framework for neuroimaging software: The case of population receptive fields," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007924
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007924
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007924&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007924?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. Marijke Welvaert & Yves Rosseel, 2014. "A Review of fMRI Simulation Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Welvaert, Marijke & Durnez, Joke & Moerkerke, Beatrijs & Berdoolaege, Geert & Rosseel, Yves, 2011. "neuRosim: An R Package for Generating fMRI Data," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 44(i10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evi Hendrikx & Jacob M. Paul & Martijn Ackooij & Nathan Stoep & Ben M. Harvey, 2022. "Visual timing-tuned responses in human association cortices and response dynamics in early visual cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.

    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. Daniel Spencer & Rajarshi Guhaniyogi & Raquel Prado, 2020. "Joint Bayesian Estimation of Voxel Activation and Inter-regional Connectivity in fMRI Experiments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(4), pages 845-869, December.
    2. Ani Eloyan & Shanshan Li & John Muschelli & Jim J Pekar & Stewart H Mostofsky & Brian S Caffo, 2014. "Analytic Programming with fMRI Data: A Quick-Start Guide for Statisticians Using R," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Cardona Jiménez, Johnatan & de B. Pereira, Carlos A., 2021. "Assessing dynamic effects on a Bayesian matrix-variate dynamic linear model: An application to task-based fMRI data analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Samaddar, Arunava & Jackson, Brooke S. & Helms, Christopher J. & Lazar, Nicole A. & McDowell, Jennifer E. & Park, Cheolwoo, 2022. "A group comparison in fMRI data using a semiparametric model under shape invariance," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Jonathan Schiefer & Alexander Niederbühl & Volker Pernice & Carolin Lennartz & Jürgen Hennig & Pierre LeVan & Stefan Rotter, 2018. "From correlation to causation: Estimating effective connectivity from zero-lag covariances of brain signals," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Sam Efromovich & Jiayi Wu, 2018. "Wavelet Analysis of Big Data Contaminated by Large Noise in an fMRI Study of Neuroplasticity," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1381-1402, December.
    7. Cheng‐Han Yu & Raquel Prado & Hernando Ombao & Daniel Rowe, 2023. "Bayesian spatiotemporal modeling on complex‐valued fMRI signals via kernel convolutions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 616-628, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Saikou Y. Diallo & Ross J. Gore & Jose J. Padilla & Christopher J. Lynch, 2015. "An overview of modeling and simulation using content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 977-1002, June.
    10. Mohsen Soltanifar & Chel Hee Lee, 2023. "SimSST: An R Statistical Software Package to Simulate Stop Signal Task Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Park, Jun Young & Polzehl, Joerg & Chatterjee, Snigdhansu & Brechmann, André & Fiecas, Mark, 2020. "Semiparametric modeling of time-varying activation and connectivity in task-based fMRI data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    12. Zhao, Yuxuan & Matteson, David S. & Mostofsky, Stewart H. & Nebel, Mary Beth & Risk, Benjamin B., 2022. "Group linear non-Gaussian component analysis with applications to neuroimaging," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    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:pcbi00:1007924. 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.