# Analyzing EEG / MEG data with PyMC3

Hi,

just to provide some background: I am a scientist working with EEG / MEG data. I recently came across PyMC3 and was wondering whether we can apply this to our data.

The probably most common use case is this: I collected data from N participants in a paradigm that has 2 conditions. The data is sampled from a number of sensors (102 magnetometers in my case). Because the data is very noisy, I average over something like 100 trials within each of the conditions for each participant separately.

So, what I end up with is a matrix with the shape of (n_participants, n_channels, n_samples) for each condition. Because I am interested in the difference between the conditions, I use the difference of the two matrices for further analysis.

The hypothesis I want to test is that at some channels and some samples the mean of the differences over all participants is not 0.

I can quite safely assume that my the differences follow a student-t distribution. So, I tried to come up with a model and used the models defined in the BEST toolbox as a template.

This is what I cam up with:

``````# normalisation seems to be needed because the values are in the range of 1e-15 and that seems to be a problem for the sampling algorithm
norm_factor = np.std(data_for_model)
data_for_model = data_for_model / norm_factor

nu_min = 2.5
nu_mean = 30
nu_mean - nu_min

with pm.Model() as model:
mu = pm.Normal('mu', mu=0, sigma=1, shape=(n_channels, n_samples)) # we want to estimate the mean for each channel and sample
std = pm.Uniform('std', lower=1e-3, upper=1e3, shape=(n_channels, 1)) # but we can assume that the std deviation is the same within each channel
nu = pm.Exponential('nu', 1 / (nu_mean - nu_min)) + nu_min
modeled_data = pm.StudentT('modeled', mu=mu, nu=nu, sigma=std, observed=data_for_model, total_size=data_for_model.shape)

trace = pm.sample(1000)
``````

Here are my questions:

1. Does this make sense to you? Or did I miss something important? This is my first attemptâ€¦
2. It seems that it is important to scale the really tiny values because otherwise, I get lots of errors from the sampler. Does that make sense?
3. Any way to speed this up? It takes like 15 hours on my laptop. I could send it to a quite powerful cluster that has ~200 cores. But it seems that the `cores` argument to `pm.sample` then only increases the number of chains, so it would not be done quicker. I already looked into providing a `multiprocessing` context but I need to limit the amount of cores available to it and I could not find out, how to do this.

Any help is highly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Thomas

1 Like

Hi @thht

if you donâ€™t mind the opinion from a PyMC3 novice here are some ideas

1. You might want to consider a more informative prior for the scale parameter, at the moment is extremely wide. I usually go for an HalfCauchy distribution. You can center it on a very small value if you are afraid that large values can cause problems.
2. Given the nature of EEG signal (if I recall correctly from my master) you might want to model the correlation between electrodes.
3. It might be an overkill here, but PyMC3 offers approximate variational inference which can provide consistent speed-up.

Finally,
can you expand a bit on the nature of n_samples? I struggle to depict the experimental design (I was expecting a (n_participants, n_channels) matrix).

1 Like

hi,
thanks for the input.

1. What do you mean by the â€śscaleâ€ť parameter? The `std`?
2. Yes, you are right. and for the MEG, I actually have a noise covariance matrix that, so i know how they covary/correlate. But i have no idea, how to model that and/or use that strong prior information. do you have any idea?
3. Actually, using variational inference with minibatches is the way I do it now. It decreases the computation time from ~20 hours to 20 minutes.

Concerning your question regarding the shape of the matrix: EEG or MEG data is sampled at a regular interval like 1000Hz. It is the strength of these methods that they allow you to infer when an effect happens. So, letâ€™s say, I want to analyze the cortical response to an auditory (e.g., a sound) compared to a visual (an image, for instance) stimulus. I would present the audio ~100 times and the visual ~100 times as well. I have triggers in my data, so I know exactly, when this stimulation happened. I would then cut out the data around these triggers (like 300ms before the stimulation to 700ms after). Because of the very low signal to noise ratio, I would then average the 100 visual and 100 auditory trials within each participant. Assuming a sampling rate of 1000Hz, I would have 1000 samples per channel for each condition and participant.

This leaves me with a (n_channels, n_samples) matrix per participant and condition, which reduces to just one of these matrices per participant before I apply the statistics, because I am interested at what channels (where?) and what samples (when?) there is a difference between the two conditions.

So, in the end, I concatenate all these matrices for all participants, which leaves me with said (n_participants, n_channels, n_samples) matrix.

Does this make it clearer?

Hi

yes that is very clear now.

1. Yes, by scale parameter I meant the `std`, might be quite challenging to sample from an uniform prior in the range 0.001 - 1000.

2. I only played around with it a couple of times, but I believe you could use a Multivariate Normal with your noise matrix as covariance matrix. The lecture by Richard McElreath on Gaussian Processes is the most accessible resource I found so far on the subject.

3. The same logic I suspect it also applies to samples, since they represent different points in time you might expect some form of temporal structure to be present. This would probably require a spatio-temporal model but this is something way out of my depth.