Bayesian lesion-deficit inference with Bayes factor mapping: Key advantages, limitations, and a toolbox

Statistical lesion-symptom mapping is largely dominated by frequentist approaches with null hypothesis significance testing. They are popular for mapping functional brain anatomy but are accompanied by some challenges and limitations. The typical analysis design and the structure of clinical lesion data are linked to the multiple comparison problem, an association problem, limitations to statistical power, and a lack of insights into evidence for the null hypothesis. Bayesian lesion deficit inference (BLDI) could be an improvement as it collects evidence for the null hypothesis, i.e. the absence of effects, and does not accumulate . alpha-errors with repeated testing. We implemented BLDI by Bayes factor mapping with Bayesian t-tests and general linear models and evaluated its performance in comparison to frequentist lesion-symptom mapping with a permutation-based family-wise error correction. We mapped the voxel-wise neural correlates of simulated deficits in an in-silico-study with 300 stroke patients, and the voxel-wise and disconnection-wise neural correlates of phonemic verbal fluency and constructive ability in 137 stroke patients. Both the performance of frequentist and Bayesian lesion-deficit inference varied largely across analyses. In general, BLDI could find areas with evidence for the null hypothesis and was statistically more liberal in providing evidence for the alternative hypothesis, i.e. the identification of lesion-deficit associations. BLDI performed better in situations in which the frequentist method is typically strongly limited, for example with on average small lesions and in situations with low power, where BLDI also provided unprecedented transparency in terms of the informative value of the data. On the other hand, BLDI suffered more from the association problem, which led to a pronounced overshoot of lesion-deficit associations in analyses with high statistical power. We further implemented a new approach to lesion size control, adaptive lesion size control, that, in many situations, was able to counter the limitations imposed by the association problem, and increased true evidence both for the null and the alternative hypothesis. In summary, our results suggest that BLDI is a valuable addition to the method portfolio of lesion-deficit inference with some specific and exclusive advantages: it deals better with smaller lesions and low statistical power (i.e. small samples and effect sizes) and identifies regions with absent lesion-deficit associations. However, it is not superior to established frequentist approaches in all respects and therefore not to be seen as a general replacement. To make Bayesian lesion-deficit inference widely accessible, we published an R toolkit for the analysis of voxel-wise and disconnection-wise data.