Lead-lag test for discrete variable vs continuous variable

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on applying the Granger causality test to analyze the relationship between electrical currents and heart readings, where the former is continuous and the latter is discrete. The user plans to use a VAR(p) model, determined by the Bayesian information criterion, to assess the lead-lag relationship. Concerns are raised regarding the validity of assumptions in applying the Granger causality test due to the differing nature of the data types. The discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of stationarity and model fitting in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Granger causality test
  • Familiarity with VAR(p) modeling
  • Knowledge of Bayesian information criterion (BIC)
  • Concept of stationarity in time series analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the application of Granger causality test for mixed data types
  • Learn about stationarity tests and their implications for VAR models
  • Explore advanced techniques for fitting VAR models
  • Investigate alternative causality tests suitable for discrete and continuous variables
USEFUL FOR

Researchers in biomedical engineering, data scientists analyzing time series data, and statisticians interested in causal inference methods.

madilyn
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Let's say I'm applying electrical currents to a certain part of a human test subject and measuring certain deflections in his heart readings during this period. Before I increase the electrical currents, which could be dangerous, I'm interested to see if the changes in electrical currents are causing ("leading") the fluctuations in heart readings.

Because of the nature of the measuring devices, the heart readings have a discrete sample space while the electrical current readings have a continuous sample space.

My question is: Is there a suitable lead-lag test for these two variables?

My planned mode of attack is to use the Granger causality test. I will take the differences in log currents and differences in log deflections: and because these currents (mA) and deflections are very small, they are valid approximations of the change in current and change in deflection. This also seems to meet the stationarity requirement of the Granger causality test.

FvOmBRb.jpg


Now, I fit a VAR(p) model with suitable number of lags p based on the Bayesian information criterion and toss it into the Granger casuality test. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality) My only concern is that I'm not applying this test correctly because of certain invalid assumptions. Any thoughts?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not finding help at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K