Source author record

Jonathan Rosenblatt

Jonathan Rosenblatt appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Methodology Neurons and Cognition Quantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

What's in a pattern? Examining the Type of Signal Multivariate Analysis Uncovers At the Group Level

Multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) has gained enormous popularity in the neuroimaging community over the past few years. At the group level, most MVPA studies adopt an "information based" approach in which the sign of the effect of individual subjects is discarded and a non-directional summary statistic is carried over to the second level. This is in contrast to a directional "activation based" approach typical in univariate group level analysis, in which both signal magnitude and sign are taken into account. The transition from examining effects in one voxel at a time vs. several voxels (univariate vs. multivariate) has thus tacitly entailed a transition from directional to non-directional signal definition at the group level. While a directional group-level MVPA approach implies that individuals have similar multivariate spatial patterns of activity, in a non-directional approach each individual may have a distinct spatial pattern. Using an experimental dataset, we show that directional and non-directional group-level MVPA approaches uncover distinct brain regions with only partial overlap. We propose a method to quantify the degree of spatial similarity in activation patterns over subjects. Applied to an auditory task, we find higher values in auditory regions compared to control regions.

preprint2015arXiv

Modeling and Analysing Respondent Driven Sampling as a Counting Process

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is an approach to sampling design and analysis which utilizes the networks of social relationships that connect members of the target population, using chain-referral methods to facilitate sampling. RDS typically leads to biased sampling, favoring participants with many acquaintances. Naive estimates, such as the sample average, which are uncorrected for the sampling bias, will themselves be biased. To compensate for this bias, current methodology suggests inverse-degree weighting, where the "degree" is the number of acquaintances. This stems from the fundamental RDS assumption that the probability of sampling an individual is proportional to their degree. Since this assumption is tenuous at best, we propose to harness the additional information encapsulated in the time of recruitment, into a model-based inference framework for RDS. This information is typically collected by researchers, but ignored. We adapt methods developed for inference in epidemic processes to estimate the population size, degree counts and frequencies. While providing valuable information in themselves, these quantities ultimately serve to debias other estimators, such a disease's prevalence. A fundamental advantage of our approach is that, being model-based, it makes all assumptions of the data-generating process explicit. This enables verification of the assumptions, maximum likelihood estimation, extension with covariates, and model selection. We develop asymptotic theory, proving consistency and asymptotic normality properties. We further compare these estimators to the standard inverse-degree weighting through simulations, and using real-world data. In both cases we find our estimators to outperform current methods. The likelihood problem in the model we present is convex, and thus efficiently solvable. We implement these estimators in an R package, chords, available on CRAN.

preprint2013arXiv

A Practitioner's Guide to Multiple Testing Error Rates

It is quite common in modern research, for a researcher to test many hypotheses. The statistical (frequentist) hypothesis testing framework, does not scale with the number of hypotheses in the sense that naively performing many hypothesis tests will probably yield many false findings. Indeed, statistical "significance" is evidence for the presence of a signal within the noise expected in a single test, not in a multitude. In order to protect himself from an uncontrolled number of erroneous findings, a researcher has to consider of the type or errors he wishes to avoid and select the adequate procedure for that particular error type and data structure. A quick search of the tag [multiple-comparisons] in the statistics Questions & Answers web site Cross Validates (http://stats.stackexchange.com) demonstrates the amount of confusion this task can actually cause. This was also a point made at the 2009 Multiple Comparisons conference in Tokyo. In an attempt to offer guidance, we review possible error types for multiple testing, and demonstrate them with some practical examples, which clarify the formalism. Finally, we include some notes on the software implementations of the methods discussed. The emphasis of this manuscript is on the error-rates, and not on the procedures themselves. We do try to name several procedures in this manuscript where appropriate. P-value adjustment will not be discussed as it is procedure specific. I.e., it is the choice of a procedure that defines the p-value adjustment, and not the error rate itself. Simultaneous confidence intervals will, also, not be discussed.