Nonsense correlations in neuroscience
Harris, K. D.
Show abstract
Many neurophysiological signals exhibit slow continuous trends over time. Because standard correlation analyses assume that all samples are independent, they can yield apparently significant "nonsense correlations" even for signals that are completely unrelated. Here we compare the performance of several methods for assessing correlations between timeseries, using simulated slowly drifting signals with and without genuine correlations. The best performance was obtained from a "pseudosession method", which relies on one of the signals being randomly generated by the experimenter, or a "session perturbation" method which requires multiple recordings under the same conditions. If neither of these is applicable, a "linear shift" method can be used when one of the signals is stationary. Methods based on cross-validation, circular shifting, phase randomization, or detrending gave up to 100% false positive rates in our simulations. We conclude that analysis of neural timeseries is best performed when stationarity and randomization is built into the experimental design.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Stochastic Dynamic Operator framework that improves the precision of analysis and prediction relative to the classical spike-triggered average method, extending the toolkit. 96%
- Comparing surrogates to evaluate precisely timed higher-order spike correlations 96%
- Different methods to estimate the phase of neural rhythms agree, but only during times of low uncertainty 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.