Comparison of two integration methods for dynamic causal modeling of electrophysiological data.

Dynamic causal modeling (DCM) is a methodological approach to study effective connectivity among brain regions. Based on a set of observations and a biophysical model of brain interactions, DCM uses a Bayesian framework to estimate the posterior distribution of the free parameters of the model ( e.g. modulation of connectivity) and infer architectural properties of the most plausible model ( i.e. model selection). When modeling electrophysiological event-related responses, the estimation of the model relies on the integration of the system of delay differential equations (DDEs) that describe the dynamics of the system. In this technical note, we compared two numerical schemes for the integration of DDEs. The first, and standard, scheme approximates the DDEs (more precisely, the state of the system, with respect to conduction delays among brain regions) using ordinary differential equations (ODEs) and solves it with a fixed step size. The second scheme uses a dedicated DDEs solver with adaptive step sizes to control error, making it theoretically more accurate. To highlight the effects of the approximation used by the first integration scheme in regard to parameter estimation and Bayesian model selection, we performed simulations of local field potentials using first, a simple model comprising 2 regions and second, a more complex model comprising 6 regions. In these simulations, the second integration scheme served as the standard to which the first one was compared. Then, the performances of the two integration schemes were directly compared by fitting a public mismatch negativity EEG dataset with different models. The simulations revealed that the use of the standard DCM integration scheme was acceptable for Bayesian model selection but underestimated the connectivity parameters and did not allow an accurate estimation of conduction delays. Fitting to empirical data showed that the models systematically obtained an increased accuracy when using the second integration scheme. We conclude that inference on connectivity strength and delay based on DCM for EEG/MEG requires an accurate integration scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]