Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities
Neural information modeling and analysis often requires a measurement of the mutual influence among many signals. A common technique is the conditional Granger causality (cGC) which measures the influence of one time series on another time series in the presence of a third. Geweke has translated thi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Biological cybernetics 2015-12, Vol.109 (6), p.627-637 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 637 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 627 |
| container_title | Biological cybernetics |
| container_volume | 109 |
| creator | Malekpour, Sheida Sethares, William A. |
| description | Neural information modeling and analysis often requires a measurement of the mutual influence among many signals. A common technique is the conditional Granger causality (cGC) which measures the influence of one time series on another time series in the presence of a third. Geweke has translated this condition into the frequency domain and has explored the mathematical relationships between the time and frequency domain expressions. Chen has observed that in practice, the expressions may return (meaningless) negative numbers, and has proposed an alternative which is based on a partitioned matrix scheme, which we call partitioned Granger causality (pGC). There has been some confusion in the literature about the relationship between cGC and pGC; some authors treat them as essentially identical measures, while others have noted that some properties (such as the relationship between the time and frequency domain expressions) do not hold for the pGC. This paper presents a series of matrix equalities that simplify the calculation of the pGC. In this simplified expression, the essential differences and similarities between the cGC and the pGC become clear; in essence, the pGC is dependent on only a subset of the parameters in the model estimation, and the noise residuals (which are uncorrelated in the cGC) need not be uncorrelated in the pGC. The mathematical results are illustrated with a simulation, and the measures are applied to an EEG dataset. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777997682</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3874576991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-a51f92bf417fa491aeeb76d08498431986ed8e4396074ebcf41a13a6d796c0b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1LxDAURYMozvjxA9xIwY2b6st3404GHQXBjS4lpO2rVDrtmLSL-femMyqiCLMKJOfePN4h5ITCBQXQlwFAMJYClSkoJVO-Q6ZU8HijNeySKXABKWUAE3IQwhsAGCbNPpkwJbTItJqSl1nXlnVfd61rkrl37Sv6pHBDcE3drxLXlsnS-X5NYPmXuErKuqrQY1tgWOOhXtSN8zGB4YjsVa4JePx5HpLn25un2V368Di_n10_pIWErE-dpJVheSWorpww1CHmWpWQCZMJTk2msMxQcKNAC8yLCDrKnSq1UQXkjB-S803v0nfvA4beLupQYNO4FrshWKq1NkarbBs07gZoJs0WqKSMxSF1RM9-oW_d4ONOR4pLaZSiYyHdUIXvQvBY2aWvF86vLAU7GrUbozYataNRy2Pm9LN5yBdYfie-FEaAbYAQn0Y5P77-t_UDBnOqlA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1735596619</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Malekpour, Sheida ; Sethares, William A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Malekpour, Sheida ; Sethares, William A.</creatorcontrib><description>Neural information modeling and analysis often requires a measurement of the mutual influence among many signals. A common technique is the conditional Granger causality (cGC) which measures the influence of one time series on another time series in the presence of a third. Geweke has translated this condition into the frequency domain and has explored the mathematical relationships between the time and frequency domain expressions. Chen has observed that in practice, the expressions may return (meaningless) negative numbers, and has proposed an alternative which is based on a partitioned matrix scheme, which we call partitioned Granger causality (pGC). There has been some confusion in the literature about the relationship between cGC and pGC; some authors treat them as essentially identical measures, while others have noted that some properties (such as the relationship between the time and frequency domain expressions) do not hold for the pGC. This paper presents a series of matrix equalities that simplify the calculation of the pGC. In this simplified expression, the essential differences and similarities between the cGC and the pGC become clear; in essence, the pGC is dependent on only a subset of the parameters in the model estimation, and the noise residuals (which are uncorrelated in the cGC) need not be uncorrelated in the pGC. The mathematical results are illustrated with a simulation, and the measures are applied to an EEG dataset.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0340-1200</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0770</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26474876</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analogies ; Bioinformatics ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Causality ; Complex Systems ; Computer Appl. in Life Sciences ; Computer simulation ; Confusion ; Cybernetics ; Datasets ; Electroencephalography ; Frequency domains ; Mathematical models ; Models, Theoretical ; Neurobiology ; Neurology ; Neurosciences ; Noise ; Original Article ; Time series</subject><ispartof>Biological cybernetics, 2015-12, Vol.109 (6), p.627-637</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-a51f92bf417fa491aeeb76d08498431986ed8e4396074ebcf41a13a6d796c0b23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-a51f92bf417fa491aeeb76d08498431986ed8e4396074ebcf41a13a6d796c0b23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26474876$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Malekpour, Sheida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sethares, William A.</creatorcontrib><title>Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities</title><title>Biological cybernetics</title><addtitle>Biol Cybern</addtitle><addtitle>Biol Cybern</addtitle><description>Neural information modeling and analysis often requires a measurement of the mutual influence among many signals. A common technique is the conditional Granger causality (cGC) which measures the influence of one time series on another time series in the presence of a third. Geweke has translated this condition into the frequency domain and has explored the mathematical relationships between the time and frequency domain expressions. Chen has observed that in practice, the expressions may return (meaningless) negative numbers, and has proposed an alternative which is based on a partitioned matrix scheme, which we call partitioned Granger causality (pGC). There has been some confusion in the literature about the relationship between cGC and pGC; some authors treat them as essentially identical measures, while others have noted that some properties (such as the relationship between the time and frequency domain expressions) do not hold for the pGC. This paper presents a series of matrix equalities that simplify the calculation of the pGC. In this simplified expression, the essential differences and similarities between the cGC and the pGC become clear; in essence, the pGC is dependent on only a subset of the parameters in the model estimation, and the noise residuals (which are uncorrelated in the cGC) need not be uncorrelated in the pGC. The mathematical results are illustrated with a simulation, and the measures are applied to an EEG dataset.</description><subject>Analogies</subject><subject>Bioinformatics</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Complex Systems</subject><subject>Computer Appl. in Life Sciences</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Confusion</subject><subject>Cybernetics</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Electroencephalography</subject><subject>Frequency domains</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>Neurobiology</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Time series</subject><issn>0340-1200</issn><issn>1432-0770</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1LxDAURYMozvjxA9xIwY2b6st3404GHQXBjS4lpO2rVDrtmLSL-femMyqiCLMKJOfePN4h5ITCBQXQlwFAMJYClSkoJVO-Q6ZU8HijNeySKXABKWUAE3IQwhsAGCbNPpkwJbTItJqSl1nXlnVfd61rkrl37Sv6pHBDcE3drxLXlsnS-X5NYPmXuErKuqrQY1tgWOOhXtSN8zGB4YjsVa4JePx5HpLn25un2V368Di_n10_pIWErE-dpJVheSWorpww1CHmWpWQCZMJTk2msMxQcKNAC8yLCDrKnSq1UQXkjB-S803v0nfvA4beLupQYNO4FrshWKq1NkarbBs07gZoJs0WqKSMxSF1RM9-oW_d4ONOR4pLaZSiYyHdUIXvQvBY2aWvF86vLAU7GrUbozYataNRy2Pm9LN5yBdYfie-FEaAbYAQn0Y5P77-t_UDBnOqlA</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Malekpour, Sheida</creator><creator>Sethares, William A.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities</title><author>Malekpour, Sheida ; Sethares, William A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-a51f92bf417fa491aeeb76d08498431986ed8e4396074ebcf41a13a6d796c0b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Analogies</topic><topic>Bioinformatics</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Complex Systems</topic><topic>Computer Appl. in Life Sciences</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Confusion</topic><topic>Cybernetics</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Electroencephalography</topic><topic>Frequency domains</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>Neurobiology</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Time series</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Malekpour, Sheida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sethares, William A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Biological cybernetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Malekpour, Sheida</au><au>Sethares, William A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities</atitle><jtitle>Biological cybernetics</jtitle><stitle>Biol Cybern</stitle><addtitle>Biol Cybern</addtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>627</spage><epage>637</epage><pages>627-637</pages><issn>0340-1200</issn><eissn>1432-0770</eissn><abstract>Neural information modeling and analysis often requires a measurement of the mutual influence among many signals. A common technique is the conditional Granger causality (cGC) which measures the influence of one time series on another time series in the presence of a third. Geweke has translated this condition into the frequency domain and has explored the mathematical relationships between the time and frequency domain expressions. Chen has observed that in practice, the expressions may return (meaningless) negative numbers, and has proposed an alternative which is based on a partitioned matrix scheme, which we call partitioned Granger causality (pGC). There has been some confusion in the literature about the relationship between cGC and pGC; some authors treat them as essentially identical measures, while others have noted that some properties (such as the relationship between the time and frequency domain expressions) do not hold for the pGC. This paper presents a series of matrix equalities that simplify the calculation of the pGC. In this simplified expression, the essential differences and similarities between the cGC and the pGC become clear; in essence, the pGC is dependent on only a subset of the parameters in the model estimation, and the noise residuals (which are uncorrelated in the cGC) need not be uncorrelated in the pGC. The mathematical results are illustrated with a simulation, and the measures are applied to an EEG dataset.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>26474876</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0340-1200 |
| ispartof | Biological cybernetics, 2015-12, Vol.109 (6), p.627-637 |
| issn | 0340-1200 1432-0770 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1777997682 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Analogies Bioinformatics Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Causality Complex Systems Computer Appl. in Life Sciences Computer simulation Confusion Cybernetics Datasets Electroencephalography Frequency domains Mathematical models Models, Theoretical Neurobiology Neurology Neurosciences Noise Original Article Time series |
| title | Conditional Granger causality and partitioned Granger causality: differences and similarities |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A28%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conditional%20Granger%20causality%20and%20partitioned%20Granger%20causality:%20differences%20and%20similarities&rft.jtitle=Biological%20cybernetics&rft.au=Malekpour,%20Sheida&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=627&rft.epage=637&rft.pages=627-637&rft.issn=0340-1200&rft.eissn=1432-0770&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00422-015-0665-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3874576991%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1735596619&rft_id=info:pmid/26474876&rfr_iscdi=true |