Application of linear mixed-effects models in human neuroscience research: A comparison with pearson correlation in two auditory electrophysiology studies

62Citations
Citations of this article
185Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Neurophysiological studies are often designed to examine relationships between measures from different testing conditions, time points, or analysis techniques within the same group of participants. Appropriate statistical techniques that can take into account repeated measures and multivariate predictor variables are integral and essential to successful data analysis and interpretation. This work implements and compares conventional Pearson correlations and linear mixed-effects (LME) regression models using data from two recently published auditory electrophysiology studies. For the specific research questions in both studies, the Pearson correlation test is inappropriate for determining strengths between the behavioral responses for speech-in-noise recognition and the multiple neurophysiological measures as the neural responses across listening conditions were simply treated as independent measures. In contrast, the LME models allow a systematic approach to incorporate both fixed-effect and random-effect terms to deal with the categorical grouping factor of listening conditions, between-subject baseline differences in the multiple measures, and the correlational structure among the predictor variables. Together, the comparative data demonstrate the advantages as well as the necessity to apply mixed-effects models to properly account for the built-in relationships among the multiple predictor variables, which has important implications for proper statistical modeling and interpretation of human behavior in terms of neural correlates and biomarkers.

Figures

  • Figure 1. Number of publication documents (including original articles and reviews) from 1951 to 2016 that contain the keyword “linear mixed-effects model.” Literature search was conducted with Elsevier’s Scopus database [53].
  • Table 1. Correlation coefficients for relationship between-phase locking values and N1 and P2 latency and amplitude values in response to the CV syllable /bu/ at electrode Cz as reported in Koerner and Zhang [54].
  • Table 2. F-statistics and regression coefficients (β) for each fixed effect from linear mixed-effects regression models for N1–P2 latencies and amplitudes.
  • Table 3. Correlation coefficients for brain-behavior correlations between neural MMN latency, amplitude, and theta power for /bu/ and /da/ at electrode Cz and behavioral phoneme detection percent correct, reaction time, and percent correct sentence recognition scores.
  • Table 4. F-statistics and regression coefficients (β) for fixed effects from linear mixed-effects regression models for each behavioral measure (Koerner et al. [57]).

References Powered by Scopus

Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items

6485Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data

422Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Robust correlation analyses: False positive and power validation using a new open source matlab toolbox

416Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Predicting the compaction characteristics of expansive soils using two genetic programming-based algorithms

135Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sleep–Wake Cycle in Young and Older Mice

78Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Role of inter-trial phase coherence in atypical auditory evoked potentials to speech and nonspeech stimuli in children with autism

31Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Koerner, T. K., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Application of linear mixed-effects models in human neuroscience research: A comparison with pearson correlation in two auditory electrophysiology studies. Brain Sciences, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci7030026

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2509182736

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 91

72%

Researcher 26

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Neuroscience 36

40%

Psychology 31

34%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15

16%

Engineering 9

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0