跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确以潜在结果定义刺激的因果效应,并讨论系统测量误差造成的效应估计偏差。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Michael E. Sobel

平衡开关实验中含系统测量误差的 fMRI 时间序列因果推断

研究问题
当刺激会改变 BOLD 信号的系统测量误差时,如何定义并估计刺激对脑活动的因果效应,避免把误差变化计入效应?
方法与思路
作者基于 Rubin 因果模型定义不含系统误差的个体与平均效应,使用测得的噪声协变量和线性混合模型联合估计效应与误差。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,该框架解释了任务相关系统误差为何需要调整,并通过社会评价威胁实验数据重分析,比较调整与忽略误差的结果。
阅读关注点
应核对真实响应与观测信号的对应关系、噪声协变量的角色,以及这种误差调整与通常的处理中间变量调整有何区别。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;误差校正的识别条件、噪声协变量要求及实证差异未说明,不能推断刊本变化。

原文摘要

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has facilitated major advances in understanding human brain function. Neuroscientists are interested in using fMRI to study the effects of external stimuli on brain activity and causal relationships among brain regions, but have not stated what is meant by causation or defined the effects they purport to estimate. Building on Rubin's causal model, we construct a framework for causal inference using blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI time series data. In the usual statistical literature on causal inference, potential outcomes, assumed to be measured without systematic error, are used to define unit and average causal effects. However, in general the potential BOLD responses are measured with stimulus dependent systematic error. Thus we define unit and average causal effects that are free of systematic error. In contrast to the usual case of a randomized experiment where adjustment for intermediate outcomes leads to biased estimates of treatment effects (Rosenbaum, 1984), here the failure to adjust for task dependent systematic error leads to biased estimates. We therefore adjust for systematic error using measured "noise covariates" , using a linear mixed model to estimate the effects and the systematic error. Our results are important for neuroscientists, who typically do not adjust for systematic error. They should also prove useful to researchers in other areas where responses are measured with error and in fields where large amounts of data are collected on relatively few subjects. To illustrate our approach, we re-analyze data from a social evaluative threat task, comparing the findings with results that ignore systematic error.

笔记与分组