Slide 1

February 26, 2010 NEMO All-Hands Meeting: Overview of Day 1 http://nemo.nic.uoregon.edu

Slide 2

Overview Todays Agenda Introductions & review of NEMO project aims (GAF) Overview of data analysis workflow (RMF) Intro to EEGLAB & NEMO simERP test data (GF/RMF) LUNCH EEGLAB visualization tutorial NEMO_Pattern_Decomposition tutorial #1 NEMO_Pattern_Decomposition tutorial #2

Slide 3

(Re)Introductions: Who we are NEMO Core (PIs & go-to people) Dejing Dou (lead PI, CIS Oregon) Gwen Frishkoff (co-PI, Psychology GSU) Allen Malony (co-I, CIS Oregon) Don Tucker (co-I, Psychology Oregon) Robert Frank (EEG/ERP Analysis Tools) Paea LePendu (Ontology Development) Snezana Nikolic (Ontology Curation) Jason Sydes (Database & Web Portal) Haishan Liu (Grad Student, CIS)

Slide 4

(Re)Introductions: Who we are NEMO Consortium John Connolly & Alex Beaverstone (McMaster U) Tim Curran & Chris Bird (U Colorado) Kerry Kilborn & Stephanie Connell (Glasgow U) Dennis Molfese (U Louisville) Chuck Perfetti (U Pittsburgh)

Slide 5

Overview of NEMO Project Aims Design and test procedures for automated & robust ERP pattern analysis and classification Capture rules, concepts in a formal ERP ontology Develop ontology-based tools for ERP data markup Apply ERP analysis tools to consortium datasets Perform meta-analyses of consortium data Build data storage & management system

Slide 6

The three pillars of NEMO ERP Ontologies ERP Data ERP Database & portal

Slide 7

The three pillars of NEMO ERP Ontologies ERP Data ERP Database & portal Focus of this All-Hands Meeting Focus of this All-Hands Meeting

Slide 8

Slide 9

TODA Y TUTORIAL #2: Decomposition with PCA TUTORIAL #3: Segmentation with Microstates TUTORIAL #1: Viewing ERP Data in EEGLAB

Slide 10

TOMORROW TUTORIAL #4: Extracting ontology-based attributes And exporting to text or RDF

Slide 11

NEMO principles that inform our pattern analysis strategies Current Challenges (motivations) Tracking what we know Ontologies Integrating knowledge to achieve high-level understanding of brainfunctional mappings Meta-analyses Important Considerations (disiderata) Stay true to data bottom-up (data-driven methods) Achieve high-level understanding top-down (hypothesis-driven methods)

Slide 12

Top-down vs. Bottom-up Top-DownBottom-Up PROS Familiar Science-driven (integrative) Formalized Data-driven (robust) CONS Informal Paradigm- affirming? Unfamiliar Study-specific results?

Slide 13

Combining Top-Down & Bottom-Up

Slide 14

TOP-DOWN Traditional approach to bio-ontology devt Encode knowledge of concepts (=> classes, relations, & axioms that involve classes & relations) in a formal ontology (e.g., owl/rdf) NEMO owl ontologies being developed & version-tracked on Sourceforge (the main topic of our last meeting)

Slide 15

TOP-DOWN NEMO top-down approach NEMO emphasis on pattern rules/descriptions way to enforce rigorous definitions Of complex concepts (patterns or components) that are central to ERP research

Slide 16

Superposition of ERP Patterns

Slide 17

What do we know about ERP patterns? Observed Pattern = P100 iff Event type is visual stimulus AND Peak latency is between 70 and 160 ms AND Scalp region of interest (ROI) is occipital AND Polarity over ROI is positive (>0) FUNCTION TIME SPACE ?

Slide 18

Why does it matter? Robust pattern rules a good foundation for Development of ERP ontologies Labeling of ERP data based on pattern rules Cross-experiment, cross-lab meta-analyses

Slide 19

BOTTOM-UP

Slide 20

Two classes of methods for NEMO_ERP_pattern_extractraction Pattern decomposition Temporal factor analysis (tPCA, tICA) Spatial factor analysis (sPCA, sICA) etc. Pattern segmentation (i.e., windowing) Microstate analysis (5 flavors Bob will describe)

Slide 21

Decomposition approach PCA, ICA, dipoles etc. multiple methods for principled separation of patterns using factor-analytic approach P100 N100 fP2 P1r/ N3 P1r/ MFN P300 100ms 170ms 200ms 280ms 400ms 600ms

Slide 22

Windowing/segmentation approach P100 N100 fP2 P1r/ N3 P1r/ MFN P300 100ms 170ms 200ms 280ms 400ms 600ms Michel, et al., 2004; Koenig, 1995; Lehmann & Skrandies, 1985 Advantages over factor-analytic/ decomposition methods: Familiarity Closer to what most ERP researchers do (manually) Less (or at least different!) concerns regarding misallocation of variance Robustness to latency diffs across subjects, conditions

Slide 23

1.Collect ERP data sets with compatible functional attributes 2.Decompose / segment the ERP data into discrete spatio- temporal patterns for analysis & labeling 3.Mark-up patterns within each dataset: labeling of spatial & temporal characteristics (functional labels assigned in step 1) 4.Cluster patterns within data sets 5.Link labeled clusters across data sets 6.Label linked clusters (i.e., establish mappings across patterns from different dataset) Overview Steps in Meta-analysis