Granger-Geweke causality: Estimation and interpretation

33Citations
Citations of this article
68Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In a recent PNAS article1, Stokes and Purdon performed numerical simulations to argue that Granger-Geweke causality (GGC) estimation is severely biased, or of high variance, and GGC application to neuroscience is problematic because the GGC measure is independent of ‘receiver’ dynamics. Here, we use the same simulation examples to show that GGC measures, when properly estimated either via the spectral factorization-enabled nonparametric approach or the VAR-model based parametric approach, do not have the claimed bias and high variance problems. Further, the receiver-independence property of GGC does not present a problem for neuroscience applications. When the nature and context of experimental measurements are taken into consideration, GGC, along with other spectral quantities, yield neurophysiologically interpretable results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dhamala, M., Liang, H., Bressler, S. L., & Ding, M. (2018). Granger-Geweke causality: Estimation and interpretation. NeuroImage, 175, 460–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.043

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free