An Empirically Driven Guide on Using Bayes Factors for M/EEG Decoding

Tutorial/Educational

An Empirically Driven Guide on Using Bayes Factors for M/EEG Decoding

Analysis Methods Neuroinformatics, Pipelines, Data, or Data Sharing

Abstract

Bayes factors can be used to provide quantifiable evidence for contrasting hypotheses and have thus become increasingly popular in cognitive science. However, Bayes factors are rarely used to statistically assess the results of neuroimaging experiments. Here, we provide an empirically driven guide on implementing Bayes factors for time-series neural decoding results. Using real and simulated magnetoencephalography (MEG) data, we examine how parameters such as the shape of the prior and data size affect Bayes factors. Additionally, we discuss the benefits Bayes factors bring to analysing multivariate pattern analysis data and show how using Bayes factors can be used instead or in addition to traditional frequentist approaches.

Received

Correspondence lina.teichmann@nih.gov

DOI: 10.52294/82179f90-eeb9-4933-adbe-c2a454577289

INTRODUCTION

The goal of multivariate decoding in cognitive neuroscience is to infer whether information is represented in the brain (Hebart & Baker, 2018). To draw meaningful conclusions in this information-based framework, we need to statistically assess whether the conditions of interest evoke different data patterns. In the context of time-resolved neuroimaging data, activation patterns are extracted across magnetoencephalography (MEG) or electroencephalography (EEG) sensors, and classification accuracies are used to estimate information at every timepoint (see Figure 1 for an example). Currently, null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) and p-values are the de facto method of choice for statistically assessing classification accuracies, but recent studies have started using Bayes factors (Grootswagers et al., 2021; e.g., Grootswagers et al., 2019b; Grootswagers, Robinson, Shatek, et al., 2019; Kaiser et al., 2018; Karimi-Rouzbahani et al., 2021; Mai et al., 2019; Proklova et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2019, 2021). Bayes factors describe the probability of one hypothesis over the other given the observed data. In the multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) context, we use Bayes factors to test the probability of above-chance classification versus at-chance classification given the decoding results across participants at each timepoint. The direct comparison of the predictions of two hypotheses is one of the strengths of the Bayesian framework of hypothesis testing (Jeffreys, 1935, 1939). The goal of this paper is to present and discuss Bayes factors from a practical standpoint in the context of time-series decoding, while referring the reader to published work focusing on the theoretical and technical background of Bayes factors.

The Bayesian approach brings several advantages over the traditional NHST framework (Dienes, 2011, 2014, 2016; Keysers et al., 2020; Morey et al., 2016; Wagenmakers et al., 2018). In addition to allowing us to contrast evidence for above-chance versus at-chance decoding directly, Bayes factors are a measure of strength of evidence for one hypothesis versus another. That means, we can directly assess how much evidence we have for different analyses. For example, if we were interested in testing whether viewing different colours evokes different neural responses, we could examine differences in the neural signal evoked by seeing red, green, and yellow objects. Using Bayes factors, we could then directly compare whether red versus green can be decoded as well as red versus yellow. Larger Bayes factors reflect more evidence that makes the interpretation of statistical results across analyses more intuitive. Another advantage is that Bayes factors can be calculated iteratively while more data are being collected and that testing can be stopped when there is a sufficient amount of evidence (Keysers et al., 2020; Wagenmakers et al., 2018). Such stopping rules could be accompanied by a pre-specified acquisition plan and potentially an (informal) pre-registration via portals such as the Open Science Framework (Foster & Deardorff, 2017).