Long-term neural and physiological phenotyping of a single human

Psychiatric disorders are characterized by major fluctuations in psychological function over the course of weeks and months, but the dynamic characteristics of brain function over this timescale in healthy individuals are unknown. Here, as a proof of concept to address this question, we present the MyConnectome project. An intensive phenome-wide assessment of a single human was performed over a period of 18 months, including functional and structural brain connectivity using magnetic resonance imaging, psychological function and physical health, gene expression and metabolomics. A reproducible analysis workflow is provided, along with open access to the data and an online browser for results. We demonstrate dynamic changes in brain connectivity over the timescales of days to months, and relations between brain connectivity, gene expression and metabolites. This resource can serve as a testbed to study the joint dynamics of human brain and metabolic function over time, an approach that is critical for the development of precision medicine strategies for brain disorders

Spacing of cue-approach training leads to better maintenance of behavioral change

<div><p>The maintenance of behavioral change over the long term is essential to achieve public health goals such as combatting obesity and drug use. Previous work by our group has demonstrated a reliable shift in preferences for appetitive foods following a novel non-reinforced training paradigm. In the current studies, we tested whether distributing training trials over two consecutive days would affect preferences immediately after training as well as over time at a one-month follow-up. In four studies, three different designs and an additional pre-registered replication of one sample, we found that spacing of cue-approach training induced a shift in food choice preferences over one month. The spacing and massing schedule employed governed the long-term changes in choice behavior. Applying spacing strategies to training paradigms that target automatic processes could prove a useful tool for the long-term maintenance of health improvement goals with the development of real-world behavioral change paradigms that incorporate distributed practice principles.</p></div

Behavioral results at probe for spacing of cue-approach training Study 3.

<p>Proportion choice of the Go vs. NoGo item (A) and proportion choice of the Spaced vs. Massed item (B) at probe immediately after training (black bars), one week (grey bars) and one month later (white bars). All error bars reflect one standard error of the mean (SEM). ** : p < 0.001, *** : p < 0.0001 in two-tailed repeated measures logistic regression for odds of choosing Go to NoGo (A) or Spaced to Massed (B)against equal odds.</p

Behavioral results at probe for spacing of cue-approach training Study 1.

<p>Proportion choice of the Go vs. NoGo item (A) and proportion choice of Spaced vs. Massed item (B) at probe immediately after training (black bars), one week (grey bars) and one month later (white bars). All error bars reflect one standard error of the mean (SEM). + : p < 0.05, * : p < 0.01, ** : p < 0.001, *** : p < 0.0001 in two-tailed repeated measures logistic regression for odds of choosing Go to NoGo (A) or Spaced to Massed (B) against equal odds.</p

Sorting and pair matching procedure used for all experiments.

<p>A) Items are rank ordered based on bid obtained in the first auction. Only 24 higher valued items (rank orders 3 to 30) are selected for use in both the training and probe phases (rank orders 4, 11, 18 and 25 not used). 24 lower valued items (from rank orders 31 to 60) are randomly selected and used as NoGo items during training but are not seen during probe. B) Probe items are assigned to one of four training conditions in a 2x2 design (Spaced Go, Massed Go, Spaced NoGo, Massed NoGo). Item condition assignments are counterbalanced across participants. Probe items are paired such that each pair contains two items that are matched for pre-experimental preference based on the initial auction to allow for four types of comparisons (Massed Go vs. Massed NoGo, Spaced Go vs. Spaced NoGo, Spaced NoGo vs. Massed NoGo and Spaced Go vs. Massed Go).</p

Demographic details for all studies.

<p>SD (Standard Deviation). BMI (Body Mass Index).</p

Descriptive statistics for probe phase behavior in Study 4.

<p>Proportion choice of Go over NoGo (top) or choice of Spaced over Massed (bottom). Odds ratio (O.R) for choice of Go to NoGo (top) or Spaced to Massed (bottom). Confidence interval (C.I) on odds ratio and p-value for odds of choosing Go (top) or Spaced (bottom) item against equal odds. Odds ratio for the interaction (X OR) and p-value for the interaction (X p) of pair type by probe time on odds of choosing Go to NoGo (top) or Spaced to Massed (bottom). Odds ratio for the main effect of pair type and its p-value (ME Pair Type OR and ME Pair Type p, respectively) of Spaced greater than Massed on choices of Go (top) or Go greater than NoGo on choices of Spaced (bottom). Odds ratio for the main effect of probe time and its p-value (ME Time OR and ME Time p, respectively).</p

Number of items (items), number of presentations of each item (Pres.) and average within-session lag (Lag) for spaced and massed items on Day 1 and Day 2 of CAT (Fig 2B) for all studies.

<p>Number of items (items), number of presentations of each item (Pres.) and average within-session lag (Lag) for spaced and massed items on Day 1 and Day 2 of CAT (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0201580#pone.0201580.g002" target="_blank">Fig 2B</a>) for all studies.</p

Behavioral results at probe for spacing of cue-approach training Study 2.

<p>Proportion choice of the Go vs. NoGo item (A) and proportion choice of the Spaced vs. Massed item (B) at probe immediately after training (black bars), one week (grey bars) and one month later (white bars). All error bars reflect one standard error of the mean (SEM). + : p < 0.05, * : p < 0.01, ** : p < 0.001 in two-tailed repeated measures logistic regression for odds of choosing Go to NoGo (A) or Spaced to Massed (B) against equal odds.</p