A blind deconvolution approach to recover effective connectivity brain networks from resting state fMRI data

A great improvement to the insight on brain function that we can get from fMRI data can come from effective connectivity analysis, in which the flow of information between even remote brain regions is inferred by the parameters of a predictive dynamical model. As opposed to biologically inspired models, some techniques as Granger causality (GC) are purely data-driven and rely on statistical prediction and temporal precedence. While powerful and widely applicable, this approach could suffer from two main limitations when applied to BOLD fMRI data: confounding effect of hemodynamic response function (HRF) and conditioning to a large number of variables in presence of short time series. For task-related fMRI, neural population dynamics can be captured by modeling signal dynamics with explicit exogenous inputs; for resting-state fMRI on the other hand, the absence of explicit inputs makes this task more difficult, unless relying on some specific prior physiological hypothesis. In order to overcome these issues and to allow a more general approach, here we present a simple and novel blind-deconvolution technique for BOLD-fMRI signal. Coming to the second limitation, a fully multivariate conditioning with short and noisy data leads to computational problems due to overfitting. Furthermore, conceptual issues arise in presence of redundancy. We thus apply partial conditioning to a limited subset of variables in the framework of information theory, as recently proposed. Mixing these two improvements we compare the differences between BOLD and deconvolved BOLD level effective networks and draw some conclusions

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

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

Controversies and progress on standardization of large-scale brain network nomenclature

Progress in scientific disciplines is accompanied by standardization of terminology. Network neuroscience, at the level of macroscale organization of the brain, is beginning to confront the challenges associated with developing a taxonomy of its fundamental explanatory constructs. The Workgroup for HArmonized Taxonomy of NETworks (WHATNET) was formed in 2020 as an Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM)-endorsed best practices committee to provide recommendations on points of consensus, identify open questions, and highlight areas of ongoing debate in the service of moving the field toward standardized reporting of network neuroscience results. The committee conducted a survey to catalog current practices in large-scale brain network nomenclature. A few well-known network names (e.g., default mode network) dominated responses to the survey, and a number of illuminating points of disagreement emerged. We summarize survey results and provide initial considerations and recommendations from the workgroup. This perspective piece includes a selective review of challenges to this enterprise, including (1) network scale, resolution, and hierarchies; (2) interindividual variability of networks; (3) dynamics and nonstationarity of networks; (4) consideration of network affiliations of subcortical structures; and (5) consideration of multimodal information. We close with minimal reporting guidelines for the cognitive and network neuroscience communities to adopt