Statistical power: Implications for planning MEG studies

• Published in: NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Vol. 233; p. 117894
• Main Authors: Chaumon, Maximilien, Puce, Aina, George, Nathalie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2021; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier
• Subjects: Cognitive science; Datasets; Distance; Experiments; Life Sciences; Medical imaging; MEG; Methodology; Neurons and Cognition; Neuroscience; Orientation; Physiology; Pipelines; Sensors; Simulation; Software; Source modeling; Statistical power; Statistics; Source modeling; Simulation; Orientation; Statistical power; MEG; Distance
• ISSN: 1053-8119; 1095-9572; 1095-9572
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117894

•We simulated evoked MEG experiments with variable number of subjects and trials.•We tested signal detectability at sensor-level (by amplitude, squared amplitude, GFP).•Statistical power varied by source distance, orientation & between-subject variability.•Consider source detectability at sensor-level when designing MEG studies.•Sample size for MEG studies? Consider source with lowest expected statistical power. Statistical power is key for robust, replicable science. Here, we systematically explored how numbers of trials and subjects affect statistical power in MEG sensor-level data. More specifically, we simulated "experiments" using the MEG resting-state dataset of the Human Connectome Project (HCP). We divided the data in two conditions, injected a dipolar source at a known anatomical location in the "signal condition", but not in the "noise condition", and detected significant differences at sensor level with classical paired t-tests across subjects, using amplitude, squared amplitude, and global field power (GFP) measures. Group-level detectability of these simulated effects varied drastically with anatomical origin. We thus examined in detail which spatial properties of the sources affected detectability, looking specifically at the distance from closest sensor and orientation of the source, and at the variability of these parameters across subjects. In line with previous single-subject studies, we found that the most detectable effects originate from source locations that are closest to the sensors and oriented tangentially with respect to the head surface. In addition, cross-subject variability in orientation also affected group-level detectability, boosting detection in regions where this variability was small and hindering detection in regions where it was large. Incidentally, we observed a considerable covariation of source position, orientation, and their cross-subject variability in individual brain anatomical space, making it difficult to assess the impact of each of these variables independently of one another. We thus also performed simulations where we controlled spatial properties independently of individual anatomy. These additional simulations confirmed the strong impact of distance and orientation and further showed that orientation variability across subjects affects detectability, whereas position variability does not. Importantly, our study indicates that strict unequivocal recommendations as to the ideal number of trials and subjects for any experiment cannot be realistically provided for neurophysiological studies and should be adapted according to the brain regions under study.