7,754 research outputs found

    Learning and comparing functional connectomes across subjects

    Get PDF
    Functional connectomes capture brain interactions via synchronized fluctuations in the functional magnetic resonance imaging signal. If measured during rest, they map the intrinsic functional architecture of the brain. With task-driven experiments they represent integration mechanisms between specialized brain areas. Analyzing their variability across subjects and conditions can reveal markers of brain pathologies and mechanisms underlying cognition. Methods of estimating functional connectomes from the imaging signal have undergone rapid developments and the literature is full of diverse strategies for comparing them. This review aims to clarify links across functional-connectivity methods as well as to expose different steps to perform a group study of functional connectomes

    Critical comments on EEG sensor space dynamical connectivity analysis

    Full text link
    Many different analysis techniques have been developed and applied to EEG recordings that allow one to investigate how different brain areas interact. One particular class of methods, based on the linear parametric representation of multiple interacting time series, is widely used to study causal connectivity in the brain. However, the results obtained by these methods should be interpreted with great care. The goal of this paper is to show, both theoretically and using simulations, that results obtained by applying causal connectivity measures on the sensor (scalp) time series do not allow interpretation in terms of interacting brain sources. This is because 1) the channel locations cannot be seen as an approximation of a source's anatomical location and 2) spurious connectivity can occur between sensors. Although many measures of causal connectivity derived from EEG sensor time series are affected by the latter, here we will focus on the well-known time domain index of Granger causality (GC) and on the frequency domain directed transfer function (DTF). Using the state-space framework and designing two simulation studies we show that mixing effects caused by volume conduction can lead to spurious connections, detected either by time domain GC or by DTF. Therefore, GC/DTF causal connectivity measures should be computed at the source level, or derived within analysis frameworks that model the effects of volume conduction. Since mixing effects can also occur in the source space, it is advised to combine source space analysis with connectivity measures that are robust to mixing

    Disentangling causal webs in the brain using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A review of current approaches

    Get PDF
    In the past two decades, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging has been used to relate neuronal network activity to cognitive processing and behaviour. Recently this approach has been augmented by algorithms that allow us to infer causal links between component populations of neuronal networks. Multiple inference procedures have been proposed to approach this research question but so far, each method has limitations when it comes to establishing whole-brain connectivity patterns. In this work, we discuss eight ways to infer causality in fMRI research: Bayesian Nets, Dynamical Causal Modelling, Granger Causality, Likelihood Ratios, LiNGAM, Patel's Tau, Structural Equation Modelling, and Transfer Entropy. We finish with formulating some recommendations for the future directions in this area

    Graph analysis of functional brain networks: practical issues in translational neuroscience

    Full text link
    The brain can be regarded as a network: a connected system where nodes, or units, represent different specialized regions and links, or connections, represent communication pathways. From a functional perspective communication is coded by temporal dependence between the activities of different brain areas. In the last decade, the abstract representation of the brain as a graph has allowed to visualize functional brain networks and describe their non-trivial topological properties in a compact and objective way. Nowadays, the use of graph analysis in translational neuroscience has become essential to quantify brain dysfunctions in terms of aberrant reconfiguration of functional brain networks. Despite its evident impact, graph analysis of functional brain networks is not a simple toolbox that can be blindly applied to brain signals. On the one hand, it requires a know-how of all the methodological steps of the processing pipeline that manipulates the input brain signals and extract the functional network properties. On the other hand, a knowledge of the neural phenomenon under study is required to perform physiological-relevant analysis. The aim of this review is to provide practical indications to make sense of brain network analysis and contrast counterproductive attitudes

    A complex network perspective on clinical science

    Full text link
    Contemporary classification systems for mental disorders assume that abnormal behaviors are expressions of latent disease entities. An alternative to the latent disease model is the complex network approach. Instead of assuming that symptoms arise from an underlying disease entity, the complex network approach holds that disorders exist as systems of interrelated elements of a network. This approach also provides a framework for the understanding of therapeutic change. Depending on the structure of the network, change can occur abruptly once the network reaches a critical threshold (the tipping point). Homogeneous and highly connected networks often recover more slowly from local perturbations when the network approaches the tipping point, potentially making it possible to predict treatment change, relapse, and recovery. In this article, we discuss the complex network approach as an alternative to the latent disease model and its implications for classification, therapy, relapse, and recovery.R34 MH086668 - NIMH NIH HHS; R01 AT007257 - NCCIH NIH HHS; R21 MH101567 - NIMH NIH HHS; R34 MH099311 - NIMH NIH HHS; R21 MH102646 - NIMH NIH HHS; K23 MH100259 - NIMH NIH HHS; R01 MH099021 - NIMH NIH HH
    • …
    corecore