Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
8686791 | NeuroImage | 2018 | 6 Pages |
Abstract
Granger-Geweke causality (GGC) is a powerful and popular method for identifying directed functional ('causal') connectivity in neuroscience. In a recent paper, Stokes and Purdon (2017b) raise several concerns about its use. They make two primary claims: (1) that GGC estimates may be severely biased or of high variance, and (2) that GGC fails to reveal the full structural/causal mechanisms of a system. However, these claims rest, respectively, on an incomplete evaluation of the literature, and a misconception about what GGC can be said to measure. Here we explain how existing approaches resolve the first issue, and discuss the frequently-misunderstood distinction between functional and effective neural connectivity which underlies Stokes and Purdon's second claim.
Related Topics
Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience
Authors
Lionel Barnett, Adam B. Barrett, Anil K. Seth,