Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33561125›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

Revisiting the importance of model fitting for model-based fMRI: It does matter in computational psychiatry.

Kentaro Katahira, Asako Toyama

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The challenge of learning adaptive mental behavior.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Advances in modeling learning and decision-making in neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kentaro KatahiraDepartment of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2018-3938
Asako ToyamaDepartment of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5212-7316
Nagoya University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational modeling has been applied for data analysis in psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. One of its important uses is to infer the latent variables underlying behavior by which researchers can evaluate corresponding neural, physiological, or behavioral measures. This feature is especially crucial for computational psychiatry, in which altered computational processes underlying mental disorders are of interest. For instance, several studies employing model-based fMRI-a method for identifying brain regions correlated with latent variables-have shown that patients with mental disorders (e.g., depression) exhibit diminished neural responses to reward prediction errors (RPEs), which are the differences between experienced and predicted rewards. Such model-based analysis has the drawback that the parameter estimates and inference of latent variables are not necessarily correct-rather, they usually contain some errors. A previous study theoretically and empirically showed that the error in model-fitting does not necessarily cause a serious error in model-based fMRI. However, the study did not deal with certain situations relevant to psychiatry, such as group comparisons between patients and healthy controls. We developed a theoretical framework to explore such situations. We demonstrate that the parameter-misspecification can critically affect the results of group comparison. We demonstrate that even if the RPE response in patients is completely intact, a spurious difference to healthy controls is observable. Such a situation occurs when the ground-truth learning rate differs between groups but a common learning rate is used, as per previous studies. Furthermore, even if the parameters are appropriately fitted to individual participants, spurious group differences in RPE responses are observable when the model lacks a component that differs between groups. These results highlight the importance of appropriate model-fitting and the need for caution when interpreting the results of model-based fMRI.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesAlgorithmsBrainComputational BiologyComputer SimulationConditioning, ClassicalDepressionHumansLearningLinear ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingNormal DistributionPsychiatryReproducibility of ResultsRewardSoftware

Identifiers

PMID33561125
PMCPMC7899379
OpenAlexW3128247846

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.