Skip to main content
Figure 3 | Neural Systems & Circuits

Figure 3

From: Functional connectivity in a rhythmic inhibitory circuit using Granger causality

Figure 3

Granger Causality analysis correctly identifies the relationship between correlated noise. (A - E). Left panels show randomly generated correlated noise (A - E, black and gray lines, S1 and S2 respectively). Correlation values ranged between perfectly anti-correlated (-100%) to perfectly correlated (+100%). In all cases (A - E, panels plot traces with correlation values of -80%, -20%, 0%, 20% and 80%), an artificial delay of 200 ms is introduced into the correlation from the black trace (S1) to the gray trace (S2). The cross-correlation (A - E, top right panels) shows a peak proportional to the amount of correlation used to generate the noise and a peak offset by the delay value of 200 ms. For each value of correlation, we compute the Granger causality (A - E, bottom right panels). Schematic network diagrams summarize the predicted Granger causality (GC) values by the thickness of the lines from S1 to S2 and diamond tips indicate the direction of the causal relationship. In all cases where a significant GC value is computed, S2 is Granger caused by S1 as expected by the time lag relationship. Note that for 0% correlation (for example, two independent noise traces), the computed GC value does not fall above the threshold for significance (C, bottom right panel, P = 0.33, dashed line). For either positive or negative correlation at 20% the computed GC is significant (B: -20%, P = 1.22 × 10-6; D: +20%, P = 1.63 × 10-4). For 80% correlated noise GC is highly significant (A: -80%, P < 1 × 10-6; E: +80%, P < 1 × 10-6).

Back to article page