In reply to Faes et al. and Barnett et al. regarding "A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective"
Authors:
Patrick A. Stokes,
Patrick L. Purdon
Abstract:
This reply is in response to commentaries by Barnett, Barrett, and Seth (arXiv:1708.08001) and Faes, Stramaglia, and Marinazzo (arXiv:1708.06990) on our paper entitled "A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective." (PNAS 114(34):7063-7072. 2017). In our paper, we analyzed several properties of Granger-Geweke causality (GGC) and discussed potential…
▽ More
This reply is in response to commentaries by Barnett, Barrett, and Seth (arXiv:1708.08001) and Faes, Stramaglia, and Marinazzo (arXiv:1708.06990) on our paper entitled "A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective." (PNAS 114(34):7063-7072. 2017). In our paper, we analyzed several properties of Granger-Geweke causality (GGC) and discussed potential problems in neuroscience applications. We demonstrated: (i) that GGC, estimated using separate model fits, is either severely biased, particularly when the true model is known, or a high variance is introduced to overcome the bias; and (ii) that GGC does not reflect some component dynamics of the system. The commentaries by both Faes et al. and Barnett et al. point out that the computational problems of (i) are resolved by using recent computational methods. We acknowledge that these problems are indeed resolved by these methods. However, the traditional computation using separate model fits continues to be presented and applied. More fundamentally, the interpretational problems stemming from (ii) are not in anyway addressed by the improved methods because they are inherent to the definition of GGC. These properties are indeed acknowledged by both commentaries. We have no misconception of the GGC measure and do not claim that these properties are facially wrong. But we do discuss at length how these properties make it inappropriate and misleading for common types of scientific questions, how presentation of GGC results without model estimates are not decipherable, and how the absence of clear statements of questions of interest present further opportunities for misinterpretation.
△ Less
Submitted 29 September, 2017;
originally announced September 2017.
