Abstract
This Correspondence article is a comment which directly relates to the paper “A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective” ( Stokes and Purdon, 2017). We agree that interpretation issues of Granger causality (GC) in neuroscience exist, partially due to the historically unfortunate use of the name “causality”, as described in previous literature. On the other hand, we think that Stokes and Purdon use a formulation of GC which is outdated (albeit still used) and do not fully account for the potential of the different frequency-domain versions of GC; in doing so, their paper dismisses GC measures based on a suboptimal use of them. Furthermore, since data from simulated systems are used, the pitfalls that are found with the used formulation are intended to be general, and not limited to neuroscience. It would be a pity if this paper, even if written in good faith, became a wildcard against all possible applications of GC, regardless of the large body of work recently published which aims to address faults in methodology and interpretation. In order to provide a balanced view, we replicate the simulations of Stokes and Purdon, using an updated GC implementation and exploiting the combination of spectral and causal information, showing that in this way the pitfalls are mitigated or directly solved.
Keywords: Granger-Geweke causality, frequency-domain connectivity, time series analysis, directed coherence, vector autoregressive models, spectral decomposition, brain connectivity, physiological oscillations
Correspondence
Granger causality (GC) 1 is an extremely popular statistical tool used to analyze directed interactions from multivariate time series measured from coupled dynamical systems. A particularly appealing aspect of the notion of GC is that it can be formulated in the frequency domain, and is thus eligible for the analysis of signals that are rich of oscillatory content such as those commonly encountered in neuroscience and physiology 2, 3. The spectral formulation of GC is obtained by elaborating in the frequency domain the parameters of the linear vector autoregressive (VAR) model that fit the observed multivariate time series. A main approach to do this was developed by Geweke 4, 5, yielding bivariate and conditional frequency domain measures of the so-called Granger-Geweke causality (GGC). An alternative framework stems from the works of Kaminski et al 6. and Baccalà et al 7, 8., who derived measures like the directed coherence (DC) and the partial DC (PDC), quantifying the total and direct directed influence of one time series over another in a fully multivariate setting (see references 9– 11 for comprehensive treatments).
In their recent work 12, Stokes and Purdon performed a critical evaluation of frequency-domain GC computed within the Geweke framework, evidencing in two simulation studies some computational and interpretational problems associated with the GGC measures. Specifically, they showed that – even when the systems generating the observed data belong to the finite-order VAR model class – spectral GGC cannot be reliably estimated and cannot recover the functional oscillatory structure underlying the data. These observations led the authors to conclude that the notion of causality quantified by GGC, and by other Granger causality measures in general, often yield counterintuitive and misleading results, thus being incompatible with the objectives of many neuroscience studies.
We definitely agree that GC and lag-based data-driven methods in general cannot provide measures of “causality” as intended in other applications (see references 9 and 13 for a thoughtful distinction between data-driven and model-based approaches). We also share the view that the assumptions of linearity and stationarity, as well as the presence of unobserved variables, noise or inappropriate sampling may pose theoretical and practical problems which can severely impair both the formulation and the computation of spectral GC measures – this has been stated by Stokes and Purdon 12 and in previous studies 2, 3, 14. On the other hand we think that, based on the way simulated data have been analyzed and interpreted by Stokes and Purdon 12, frequency domain GC methods have been dismissed based on a suboptimal (even though frequently applied) formulation of GGC, and based on the lack of direct consideration of the DC/PDC framework.
In this contribution, we repeat the simulations of Stokes and Purdon 12, and suggest that the negative conclusions based on the results of such simulations are overstated. We show that spectral GGC estimates can be obtained with a high computational reliability if proper estimation approaches are employed, and the interpretation of frequency domain causality measures can be meaningfully performed if spectral and causal information are properly combined. The codes for running our analyses are based on existing Matlab © toolboxes 11, 15, 16 and are provided as supplementary data alongside this article.
The first simulation of Stokes and Purdon 12 shows that, due to the modeling choices required to compute spectral GGC, this measure cannot be reliably estimated even for simple systems. By generating 100 realizations of this simulation with the same parameters and data length we confirm that, by applying the standard method of fitting separate full and reduced VAR models, spectral GGC estimates display a strong bias ( Figure 1A) or a very large variability ( Figure 1B), depending on the choice of the model order. As explained by Stokes and Purdon 12, this tradeoff between bias and variance arises from the incorrect representation of the reduced model as a VAR process of finite order. Exactly for this reason however, the problem can be overcome employing the state-space (SS) approach 16, which allows to compute GGC in closed form from the SS parameters of any observed VAR process. Here we show that this approach yields highly accurate spectral estimates of GGC, which closely follow the expected profiles over the coupled directions and have negligible magnitude over the uncoupled direction ( Figure 1C); the higher reliability of the SS estimator compared with the standard VAR-based method is evident also looking at single process realizations ( Figure 1D).
The second simulation of Stokes and Purdon 12 shows that, due to the independence of GGC measures from the intrinsic dynamics of the “receiver” process, the spectral GGC profiles linking this process to its putatively causal “transmitter” process are often misleading, because different systems can have identical causality functions but different receiver dynamics. In Figure 2 we confirm this result both in terms of GGC and using the DC, a spectral causality measure taken from the VAR framework 7 that for bivariate processes like the one simulated here is analytically related to the spectral GGC 15. However, this invariance property is in our view absolutely reasonable, because the DC has a clear-cut interpretation as the relative amount of spectral power that, at each frequency, arrives to the receiver starting from the transmitter 11. Nevertheless, the DC is also useful to fully recover the functional oscillatory structure of the observed processes, because it shapes the receiver spectrum to reveal the portion of its spectral power that is “causally” due to the transmitter; this is depicted in the spectral decomposition of Figure 2.
In conclusion, while thanking Stokes and Purdon 12 for pointing out some weaknesses of GGC measures, we think that proper formulations can provide meaningful results of directed dynamical influence, whose interpretation still is bound to the knowledge and good faith of those who write and read related scientific literature.
Data availability
The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2017 Faes L et al.
Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Dataset 1: Codes to compute frequency-domain Granger causality in linear stochastic processes. The package contains Matlab scripts and functions that allow to reproduce the simulations of Stokes and Purdon, and to compare for these simulations: (i) the standard vector autoregressive estimator and the updated state space estimator of the spectral Granger-Geweke causality measure; (ii) the spectral Granger-Geweke causality measure with the directed coherence measure.
Funding Statement
The work was funded by the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Trento, Italy (40300314).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[version 1; referees: 2 approved]
References
- 1. Granger CWJ: Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica. 1969;37(3):424–438. 10.2307/1912791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Seth AK, Barrett AB, Barnett L: Granger Causality Analysis in Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. J Neurosci. 2015;35(8):3293–3297. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4399-14.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Porta A, Faes L: Wiener–Granger causality in network physiology with applications to cardiovascular control and neuroscience. Proc IEEE2016;104(2):282–309. 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2476824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Geweke J: Measurement of Linear Dependence and Feedback between Multiple Time Series. J Am Stat Assoc. 1982;77(378):304–313. 10.1080/01621459.1982.10477803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Geweke JF: Measures of Conditional Linear Dependence and Feedback between Time Series. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79(388):907–915. 10.1080/01621459.1984.10477110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kamiński M, Ding M, Truccolo WA, et al. : Evaluating causal relations in neural systems: Granger causality, directed transfer function and statistical assessment of significance. Biol Cybern. 2001;85(2):145–157. 10.1007/s004220000235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Baccalá LA, Sameshima K, Ballester G, et al. : Studying the Interaction Between Brain Structures via Directed Coherence and Granger Causality. Appl Signal Process. 1998;5(1):40–48. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
- 8. Baccalá LA, Sameshima K: Partial directed coherence: a new concept in neural structure determination. Biol Cybern. 2001;84(6):463–474. 10.1007/PL00007990 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bressler SL, Seth AK: Wiener-Granger causality: a well established methodology. Neuroimage. 2011;58(2):323–329. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Chicharro D: On the spectral formulation of Granger causality. Biol Cybern. 2011;105(5–6):331–347. 10.1007/s00422-011-0469-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Faes L, Erla S, Nollo G: Measuring connectivity in linear multivariate processes: definitions, interpretation, and practical analysis. Comput Math Methods Med. 2012;2012:18, 140513. 10.1155/2012/140513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Stokes PA, Purdon PL: A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(34):E7063–E7072. 10.1073/pnas.1704663114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Valdes-Sosa PA, Roebroeck A, Daunizeau J, et al. : Effective connectivity: influence, causality and biophysical modeling. Neuroimage. 2011;58(2):339–361. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Florin E, Gross J, Pfeifer J, et al. : Reliability of multivariate causality measures for neural data. J Neurosci Methods. 2011;198(2):344–358. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Faes L, Nollo G: Measuring frequency domain granger causality for multiple blocks of interacting time series. Biol Cybern. 2013;107(2):217–232. 10.1007/s00422-013-0547-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Barnett L, Seth AK: Granger causality for state-space models. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2015;91(4): 040101. 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.040101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Faes L, Stramaglia S, Marinazzo D: Dataset 1 in: On the interpretability and computational reliability of frequency-domain Granger causality. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]