3
$\begingroup$

I have two correlation coefficients ($r_1$ and $r_2$), obtained within the same sample (20 subjects). My aim is to test it they are significantly different. $r_1$ is the correlation between a neurophysiological parameter and a behavioural parameter in condition A; $r_2$ is the correlation between the same neurophysiological parameter and the same behavioural parameter in condition B.

I was thinking to apply a bootstrap procedure for each condition, in order to obtain two distributions of correlations. Then, I can simply run a two-sample t-test, to test for a significant difference.

My questions:

  1. Does this procedure seem reasonable to achieve my purpose? (test if $r_1$ and $r_2$ are significantly different)
  2. Is there a way to decide the number of iterations, or is it totally arbitrary? (for example..Can I go with 1000?)
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you're going to generate multiple correlation coefficients through bootstrapping then why not generate a distribution of $r_1-r_2$ and use that to calculate a p value for the difference in coefficients that you observed? If something is wrong with this then hopefully someone will explain why. $\endgroup$ – Ian_Fin Nov 16 '16 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that utobi does not agree (see below). In your opinion, in this situation, is better to use a permutation or a bootstrap approach? $\endgroup$ – smndpln Nov 16 '16 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ From skimming their response, it seems @utobi and I agree on what the relevant statistic might be ($r_1-r_2$). I have no opinion on whether a permutation or bootstrap approach to generating that statistic is more appropriate. Hopefully someone else, maybe utobi, will be able to answer that for you. $\endgroup$ – Ian_Fin Nov 16 '16 at 16:38
1
$\begingroup$

I think in your case it is best to use a permutation test in which you compute a permuted correlation for each condition and then take their difference. For instance, you can concatenate row-wise your two variables under condition A and those under condition B, so you end up with a matrix (20*2 $\times$ 2). Then you permute across this 40 rows and get the p-value, as explained by the following R code:

# fix the # permutations
nperm <- 5000 # needs to be large enough but depends on the samp. size

# set a void vector for the dif of correl.
cor.dif <- rep(NA, nperm)

# simulate some fake data
n1 <- n2 <- 10
x1a <- runif(n1)
x2a <- rnorm(n2)
x1b <- rnorm(n1)
x2b <- runif(n2)

X1 <- cbind(x1a, x2a) # the two measurements in cond. A
X2 <- cbind(x1b, x2b) # the two measurements in cond. B

# concatenate row-wise X1 and X2
X <- rbind(X1, X2) # this is the matrix of 20*2 x 2

# now start permuting
for(i in 1:nperm){

  # sample an index
  idx <- sample(na+nb,na, replace = FALSE)

  # calculate the permuted correlation in the first condition
  cor.1 <- cor(X[idx,1],X[idx,2])

  # calculate the permuted correlation in the second condition
  cor.2 <- cor(X[-ida,1],X[-idx,2])

  # store the dif. of correlations
  cor.dif[i] <- cor.1-cor.2
}

# compute the empirical/actual difference of correlations
emp.cor.dif <- cor(x1a, x2a)-cor(x1a, x2a)

# see at the plot
hist(cor.dif)
abline(v = emp.cor.dif)

# compute the Monte Carlo approximation of the permutation p-value
2*min(mean(cor.dif>emp.cor.dif), mean(cor.dif<emp.cor.dif))
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I get the method here, but, actually, why should I correlate across conditions? $\endgroup$ – smndpln Nov 16 '16 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ If you are referring to my answer, you do not take correlation across conditions, but within conditions. Lastly, you take the difference of correlations at each condition and test if such a difference is zero or not. Is that clear? $\endgroup$ – utobi Nov 16 '16 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, that is clear, sorry for misreading the script. In your opinion, why permutation should be used here instead of bootstrap? $\endgroup$ – smndpln Nov 16 '16 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ Here and in general, I prefer permutation testing procedures because they exactly control type I error rate. $\endgroup$ – utobi Nov 16 '16 at 16:54
-1
$\begingroup$

If you are testing the effect of behavioral parameter on neuro-physiological parameter on two different condition. you can test whether interaction of two different condition and behavioral on neuro-physiological. If the addition of interaction term is significant, you can say that neuro-physiological values are associated with two different condition.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean with "If the addition of interaction term is significant"? And...I think you are talking about using an ANCOVA for this analysis. Am I right? $\endgroup$ – smndpln Nov 17 '16 at 14:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.