Advertisement

Modelling the Bivariate Spatial Distribution of Amacrine Cells

  • Peter J. Diggle
  • Stephen J. Eglen
  • John B. Troy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 185)

Summary

We are interested in studying the spatial dependency between the positions of on and off cholinergic amacrine cells because we hope this will tell us something about how the two cell types emerge during development.

Our goal in is to demonstrate how recently developed Monte Carlo methods for conducting likelihood-based analysis of realistic point process models can lead to sharper inferences about the bivariate structure of the data. In particular, we will formulate and fit a bivariate pairwise interaction model for the amacrines data, and will argue that likelihood-based inference within this model is both statistically more efficient and scientifically more relevant than ad hoc testing of benchmark hypotheses such as independence.

Key words

Bivariate pairwise interaction processes Cholinergic amacrine cells Likelihood-based inference Monte-Carlo methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A.J. Baddeley, J. Møller and R.P. Waagepetersen. Non-and semiparametric estimation of interaction in inhomogeneous point patterns. Statistica Neerlandica, 54(3):329–350, 2000.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A.J. Baddeley, R.A. Moyeed, C.V. Howard and A. Boyde. Analysis of a three-dimensional point pattern with replication. Applied Statistics, 42:641–668, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A.J. Baddeley and R. Turner. Practical maximum pseudolikelihood for spatial point processes. New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 42:283–322, 2000.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.E. Besag, R. Milne and S. Zachary. Point process limits of lattice processes. Journal of Applied Probability, 19:210–216, 1982.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Brandon. Cholinergic neurons in the rabbit retina: dendritic branching and ultrastructural connectivity. Brain Research, 426:119–130, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P.J. Diggle. Displaced amacrine cells in the retina of a rabbit: analysis of a bivariate spatial point pattern. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 18:115–125, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P.J. Diggle. Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P.J. Diggle and R.J. Gratton. Monte carlo methods of inference for implicit statistical models (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 46:193–227, 1984.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P.J. Diggle, N. Lange and F. Benes. Analysis of variance for replicated spatial point patterns in clinical neuroanatomy. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86:618–625, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    P.J. Diggle, J. Mateu and H.E. Clough. A comparison between parametric and non-parametric approaches to the analysis of replicated spatial point patterns. Advances in Applied Probability, 32:331–343, 2000.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    T. Euler, P.B. Detwiler and W. Denk. Directionally selective calcium signals in dendrites of starburst amacrine cells. Nature, 418:845–852, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    E.V. Famiglietti. “starburst” amacrine cells and cholinergic neurons: mirror-symmetric on and off amacrine cells of rabbit retina. Brain Research, 261:138–144, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    E.V. Famiglietti. Starburst amacrine cells: morphological constancy and systematic variation in the anisotropic field of rabbit retinal neurons. Journal of Neuroscience, 5:562–577, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D.J. Gates and M. Westcott. Clustering estimates in spatial point distributions with unstable potentials. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 38 A:55–67, 1986.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    C.J. Geyer. Likelihood inference for spatial point processes. In O.E. Barndorff-Nielsen, W.S. Kendall and M.N.M. van Lieshout, editors, Stochastic Geometry: likelihood and computation, pages 141–172. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    C.J. Geyer and E.A. Thompson. Constrained monte carlo maximum likelihood for dependent data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 54:657–699, 1992.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Hughes. New perspectives in retinal organisation. Progress in Retinal Research, 4:243–314, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    H.W. Lotwick and B.W. Silverman. Methods for analysing spatial processes of several types of points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 44:1982, 406–413.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    B.D Ripley. The second-order analysis of stationary point processes. Journal of Applied Probability, 13:255–266, 1976.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    B.D. Ripley. Modelling spatial patterns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 39:172–212, 1977.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    B.D. Ripley and F.P. Kelly. Markov point processes. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 15:188–192, 1977.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    D. Strauss. A model for clustering. Biometrika, 63:467–475, 1975.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Tauchi and R.H. Masland. The shape and arrangement of the cholinergic neurons in the rabbit retina. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, B, 23:101–119, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    M.N.M. van Lieshout. Markov point processes and their applications. Imperial College Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    E. Wienawa-Narkiewicz. Light and Electron Microscopic Studies of Retinal Organisation. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Diggle
    • 1
  • Stephen J. Eglen
    • 2
  • John B. Troy
    • 3
  1. 1.Lancaster University and Johns Hopkins University School of Public HealthUK
  2. 2.University of CambridgeUK
  3. 3.Northwestern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations